Prominent Jews like the Harvard lawyer have spent years criticizing Obama. So, why are they endorsing him?

If President Barack Obama is so bad on Israel, why are some of his most prominent Jewish critics planning on voting for him anyway? The list of these critics is long, but it includes former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, and media tycoon Haim Saban. All three spent Obama’s first term laying into the president on his Israel policy as if it were their litmus test—and all three are now publicly supporting his re-election.

Powerhouse lawyer Alan Dershowitz criticized Obama in the Wall Street Journal for not sending a tough enough message to the Iranian regime, and he even wondered openly if the president might be remembered as “the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century.”

However, it seems that Dershowitz was sufficiently impressed by Obama’s seriousness regarding Iran when, in a personal meeting in the Oval Office, the president assured him, “I don’t bluff.” Now the professor is stumping for the president in Florida, and yesterday he officially endorsed him in the Jerusalem Post, writing that “the case for the reelection of Barack Obama is a compelling one, based not only on his past record but on the specific policies he has proposed for the next four years.”

Ed Koch famously sent “a message to President Obama that he cannot throw Israel under the bus with impunity” last year in the New York Times. He ripped the president in 2010 when the administration made a big issue out of continued Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. “What they did is they wanted to make Israel into a pariah,” he said of the White House. “It’s outrageous in my judgment.” Koch noted that he campaigned for Obama in 2008, and pushed Jews to vote for him, arguing he would be just as solid in his support for Israel as the Republican candidate, John McCain. “I don’t think it’s true anymore,” said Koch.

But now the mayor is back in Obama’s fold, if somewhat reluctantly, “I believe that he is going to win whether I vote for him or not,” Koch told a radio interviewer in September. “So, wouldn’t it be better that he wins changing his positions?”

In 2011, Haim Saban was angry with the administration for airing its grievances with Israel in public—and he went on CNBC to say so. Now that the election is around the corner, the Israeli-American billionaire is singing a different tune. The president’s “support for Israel’s security and well-being has been rock solid,” Saban wrote in a heavily circulated New York Times op-ed last month. “What’s the case against Mr. Obama? That he hasn’t visited Israel since he was a candidate in 2008? Perhaps these critics have forgotten that George W. Bush, that great friend of Israel, didn’t visit Jerusalem until his seventh year in office,” Saban added. Somehow Saban seems to have forgotten that he is one of those critics.

So, what gives? Obama’s record on Israel, as Koch, Dershowitz, and Saban have all helpfully pointed out, is not good. The president’s strained relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unlikely to improve in a second term when Israeli-American relations will be more crucial than ever with Iran on the verge of nuclear breakout. Obama says he has Israel’s back and reminds us regularly of the trip he took to Sderot as a candidate. But who can forget that he started his first term telling a group of Jewish leaders he invited to the White House that it was important to put daylight between the United States and Israel?

Maybe former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz was right when he wrote after the 2008 election that no matter how dire the situation for Israel, Jews simply cannot bring themselves to vote for Republicans. As much as American Jews care, or claim to care, about the Jewish state, they are not one-issue voters. They care just as much, if not more, about issues that other liberal voters care about, like abortion and gay rights. (Podhoretz had hoped for “buyer’s remorse” among Jews who supported Obama in 2008, but no such luck. The latest Gallup poll shows that Jewish voters are going for Obama over Mitt Romney 70 to 25.)

There’s also the fact that the voting habits of Jews, like everyone other American who has ever stepped into a polling booth, are dictated as much by emotion and tradition as by reason. If you imagine your immigrant grandparents are watching you, it’s a lot harder to pull the lever for the guy with the million-dollar country-club grin. Some will argue that this is what’s going on with Dershowitz, Koch, and Saban.

The strictly political interpretation of their apparent flip-flop is that it allows them to be kingmakers of a sort. Koch has crossed party lines before: He backed George W. Bush for re-election in 2004, and his support for Bob Turner when he was running to replace Anthony Weiner in New York’s ninth district might have helped put the Republican over the top. But if Koch did nothing but cross party lines, he’d make himself irrelevant within the party. Remaining a Democrat while criticizing the president makes him an unpredictable player that top Democratic officials have to keep happy.

But it may be that these pro-Israel democrats are playing a longer game with a far-seeing strategy. If Dershowitz and the rest were to leave the fold, the Democratic Party could shift policies, and possibly quite rapidly. That is, perhaps they’re embracing Obama for the sake of the party—and so Israel continues to have support on both sides of the aisle.

Even before the founding of the Jewish state, the U.S.-Israel relationship has been based on strong bipartisan support. As I wrote in May, Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s late father Benzion pioneered this consensus, lobbying both sides of the aisle. AIPAC, of course, has institutionalized it, ensuring that the Jewish state has devoted friends everywhere on Capitol Hill.

Without that broad agreement—that Israel is a valuable strategic partner in a region of vital U.S. interest, and a friend with whom America has shared values and principles—the relationship would be buffeted by all of Washington’s various political winds. By sticking with Obama in spite of all, Dershowitz and others are arguably protecting the bipartisan nature of the relationship, and at an especially vulnerable time.

Like many pro-Israel Democrats, Koch is still reeling from the chaos that broke out at the Democratic National Convention when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had to call for a floor vote three times to include recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the party’s platform. “Nobody,” said Koch, “has adequately explained to me how the boos for God and Israel at the Democratic convention were louder than the cheers. How can that be?”

The issue, as Koch surely knows, is that the party’s rank and file is shifting, with figures like Dershowitz and himself holding the line. And yet if the 2012 convention is any indication, the proudly pro-Israel wing of the Democratic party will, within a very short period of time, appear increasingly out of step. Saban and other prominent Jewish Democrats will be replaced by voices on the left who have made their hostility to Israel clear. Accordingly, the old guard seems to believe that while Obama isn’t great for Israel, backing him is good for the health of the party and the Jewish state.

There’s a place for voters for whom strong support of Israel is the key issue—and that’s the Republican Party. But Israel’s security has long depended on backing from both parties. Without it, the Jewish state will rapidly become a partisan issue, and Israel will invariably pay the price. At a moment when Israel needs strong U.S. support, Koch, Dershowitz, and Saban are looking to postpone that day of reckoning.

***

Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at letters@tabletmag.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

Jews are very politically active, and after centuries (nay, millennia!) of exclusion are fully exercising democracy’s benefits. Most Jews are active over multiple political issues, not only Israel. So Obama smartening up over Israel has helped him gain the support of Jewish activists in many other areas. Its sort of a synergistic effect he is reaping, but he is a fast learner.

julis123says:

October 31, 2012 - 8:27 am

There’s no great mystery here. Romney is widely seen by most commentators as being better for Israel than Obama. Americans Jews (For better or for worse) simply rate other issues higher than Israel for choosing a president.

Eric Greensays:

October 31, 2012 - 2:00 pm

There are even more ‘structural’ issues than the LIKE vs. DISLIKE approaches indicate. When Bibi Netanyahu about six weeks ago charged into the election campaign trying to stampede Barack Obama into RedLINE action immediately against Iran he admitted his relationship to Romney was “friend”…. no balanced reference, just a clumsy attempt to paint Obama into a power corridor’s corner and force him to do something in a hasty and wrong way. This was an extraordinarily clumsy attempt to co-opt American political process. If Israel wants balance and judiciousness in its relationship with the two spectra of American political action, liberal vs. conservative (such as they are), then Israel’s leaders should refrain totally from such clumsy entries into its political processes. The dog is America; the tail is Israel. Tails should not wag dogs.

Eric. Where do you take the chutzpah to spit on those who simply disagree with you and your arrogant presomptous attitude. Many of us came to our senses and are running as far as we can from the anti-Semitic muslim. We left the stetl and the disease infected Democratic Party. Get off the high horse and come down to earth where most normal people live.

No he’s an anti-Semitic Muslim! You sound like some of the troglodytes on the right. Any more accusation? How about the birther issue? Try that next!

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 4:51 am

You claim to read history, read a little about Islam before spouting. Islam regards all lands once ruled by Islam as lands that must return to be ruled by Islam. This includes of course primarily Israel because Jews are Dhimies. This is followed by Sicily and Andalous, the Arabic name for Spain. “A Jews is hiding behind that rock, go and kill him!” is an invention? It is time to open your eyes mister history!

Every time you open your trap, your ignorance shows. No one here, whom I have read is proposing a draconian peace on Israel, the limitation of arms, forced borders or appeasement of the Arabs. So, what else is new? Many Arabs are horrible and they hate Jews. Are there Jews that hate Arabs and many others? Of course. I support Israel, the IDF and a strong stance against terrorism, Hamas, Hezbollah and any and all of Israel’s enemies. But, a two-state solution, with iron clad guarantees and a peace treaty, plus full recognition of Israel’s statehood is a pre-condiition for me and our government. As thick-headed and stubborn as you sound, even the most cynical would believe that you agree to this. If you don’t go there volunteer, pick up an Uzi and do your best. So far, you sound like the typical Chicken Hawk!

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 8:23 pm

I am not going to discuss the security of Israel with you. Suffice to say that Obama declared “the 1967 line” as a starting line for agreements. It is like saying to Israel go ahead commit suicide. Of course this includes taking away Jerusalem the eternal capital of the Jewish nation. Of as a US Jew you like the idea just like your grand parents and parents liked Roosevelt who closed the doors to my family. They went up in smoke. You make this true Jew sick!

Noting the moronic tone of your remarks, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. If you are a Jew like Eric Canter and many others I have known, we were correct in preventing your people from settling here. How’d you get in? Of course, that is a stretch. I have no clue who your people were, but if you are an example of their thinking, then I have a better picture. Nobody likes to restrict people from refuge. But, you are a dope and your continual diatribes reflect that obnoxious reality. I would gather that if asked, you would prevent many from American refuge. I see no “openess” in your remarks.

Poupicsays:

November 2, 2012 - 11:01 am

You are really sicker than I first observed. Maybe psychiatrists will find you before you arm anyone or yourself preferably.

leucippesays:

November 4, 2012 - 12:23 pm

Poupic: it’s time for you to shut up. Your remarks have no place on a respectable site, like this one. YOu are abusive, ignorant, and a spoiler. So please go away.

Poupicsays:

November 4, 2012 - 12:45 pm

Insulting me is not an argument that I am wrong. It is more like the truth hit you between the eyes: Obama is a flaming anti- Semite and he regard the USA as exploiter of the third world. We know that because of his spiritual mentor, Wright’s rants: “God damn America!” and “Them Jews won’t let me see Obama. He then threw Wright in the garbage fearing that the mere mention of Wright would cost him the Presidency. He never mentioned his spiritual mentor of 20 years ever again since then. Clinton and the Republicans fearing to be called racists were like deer in the headlight. They said nothing in 2008. Tis is 2012 and Romney still has the same concern. He never mention Wright despite personal attacks on him never ending. I say the truth because the truth will set anti- Semite Obama free from the White House. Tuesday is coming fast enough! I will have so much joy voting anti- Semite Obama out!

Beatrix17says:

November 6, 2012 - 5:03 pm

As I said Poupic, you have over 8,000 plus votes (60 plus on one post alone) and this guy has 135. Total. And he wants you to shut up.

Saint_Etiennesays:

November 2, 2012 - 6:56 pm

Badly done. Very badly.

leucippesays:

November 4, 2012 - 12:22 pm

agreed. Muslim, indeed. I didn’t think that there were Jewish idiots like Poupic and others out there. But I guess i was wrong.

It’s actually quite insulting when people group entire demographics and think that they care about only one thing. Democrats group all women together and discuss nothing but abortions and contraceptives. People group all latinos together and discuss nothing but immigration. People group all Jews together and think that we care only about Israel. Guess what, we’re just as American as the white, christian men, and we share the same concerns about our country that everyone else does, so it’s really time for politicians and pundits to realize it.

bernardbaumsays:

October 31, 2012 - 1:07 pm

I suggest you look at the third paragraph of the article . And even if one supports Israel , so what ? It doesn’t matter one bit because it “The America Way” . whats wrong with agreeing with and standing up for a country whose values goals, democracy are so closely alined with the USA. ?

I have no problem with people supporting Israel. The thing I have a problem with is when people assume that just because a candidate is pro or anti-Israel, all the Jews will line up behind him like it’s all we care about.

Poupicsays:

October 31, 2012 - 9:45 am

The answer is so simple. They are US Jews. Their parents and grand parents like them before voted for Roosevelt even though he closed the doors of escape to Jews who later went up in smoke as a result. US Jews in their country club they call Jewish centers are all in name only. They make me sick! This ex- Democrat will vote to replace anti- Semite Obama. By the way I left my over 3 decades party when I discovered that it was infected with the anti- Semitic virus. The enormous scream of “NO!” for the Jewish capital in Jerusalem was truly horribly a proof of what I discovered.

tjkesays:

October 31, 2012 - 12:49 pm

I agree with you. I don´t trust Obama and his gang. Look hi advisors are Samantha Powers, rashid Khalidi, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Zbigniew Brzezinski, all of them are antisemites

Poupicsays:

October 31, 2012 - 12:55 pm

Thank you! At least one “Just” among US Jews. There is a chance to redeem them perhaps.

altershmaltersays:

October 31, 2012 - 2:38 pm

The truth (if you can handle it) is that Romney knows very little about foreign policy and would surround himself with recycled neo-cons, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and (chalilah) Cheney, plus John (we hardly knew ye) McCain and their “war, baby, war” chant? As a Jew, I care deeply for Israel and would reiterate that the only 2 presidents who have forsaken Israel WHILE IN OFFICE have been Eisenhower (gun embargo during 1956) and Bush I (no loan credits). Of course, if you liked John Foster Dulles or James “F**k the Jews” Baker, even our own Israel-hater Hank Kissinger, then you will love the Romney boys and the next war. Do not let your perception become reality.

genelevitsays:

October 31, 2012 - 3:02 pm

You forgot Jimmy Carter and his book about apartheid.

altershmaltersays:

October 31, 2012 - 3:45 pm

Did you have too much Glenlivet. genelevit? Re-read, please, WHILE IN OFFICE!

yevkasays:

November 2, 2012 - 1:36 pm

It was an excellent scholarly book. I read it.

genelevitsays:

October 31, 2012 - 3:02 pm

You forgot Jimmy Carter and his book about apartheid.

Grantmansays:

October 31, 2012 - 3:20 pm

What did Obama know about foreign policy prior to his election?

altershmaltersays:

October 31, 2012 - 3:45 pm

Ahem…you miss the point…it’s about who the President counts among his elite confidant(e)s…I would rather have Hillary Clinton as my wingman than Donald Rumsfeld.

Hobbessays:

October 31, 2012 - 8:48 pm

“I would rather have Hillary Clinton as my wingman than Donald Rumsfeld.” tell that to the Americans dead in Benghazi!

and what do we tell to the families of the 4488 soldiers killed in Iraq, who didn’t have to die? You know, the ones whose bodies Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rove didn’t want to show on TV when they were returned home?

What does he know after 4 years? I will tell you what he knows. For 20 years he learned from his spiritual mentor, Wright Liberation Theology that regards the USA as the oppressor and the third world as the oppressed. This is why Mubarak a long time ally was thrown under the bus, why after a US ambassador was killed in Tripoli they all continued saying that it was because of a video. Look at the Middle East, it is on fire and the Muslim Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of the USA is taking over everywhere. They only different with Al Qaeda in that they have a strategy to roll with the punch to be ready with the next step to Islamise the world. So we hear from the Obama camp often that the Brotherhood is MODERATE! True Mubarak had harsh methods to keep them in check. That is the way of the Arab world. Always has been and Democracy will not work even if they vote. Look at Turkey, not an Arab state but a Islamic state. Erdogan, a Islamist has put generals in jail, journalists, in jail… Same in Egypt today bloggers, newsmen, in jail… I have no doubt that anyone, particularly Romney will be far better than Obama in foreign policies.

yevkasays:

November 2, 2012 - 1:34 pm

Hosni Mubarak was put out of power because he was a dictator and he was dispatched from his life time position as dictator precisely because he was a dictator. This was done with determined dispatch by the people of whom Mubarak dictated over – they’re called Egyptians.

Poupicsays:

November 2, 2012 - 2:04 pm

OK, I agree Mubarak was a dictator who prevented The Muslim Brotherhood from taking over for 30 years while he was trusted ally of the USA and maintained the peace with Israel. So? Name one Arab state that has a democracy with freedom of speech, equality for all, freedom of religion. Then compare Egypt today to Mubarak’s time and ask yourself are the Kopt safer today then they were under Mubarak for example. Obama threw Mubarak under the bus, a 30 years ally of the USA as if he was yesterday’s garbage. In fact as Arab leaders go he was pretty mild. Anti- Semite Obama is not only a danger to Israel he is a danger to Egyptians because he sided with The Muslim Brotherhood calling it “MODERATE! Egyptian women are forced to forget the short dream of equality they had for a few days. Barbers in Egypt have been warned that soon they would not be allowed to shave beards anymore. Does this bother you? Does it bother you that Kopt, the original Egyptians from before the Arabs came out of Arabia are fleeing Egypt in greatOK, I agree Mubarak was a dictator who prevented The Muslim Brotherhood from taking over for 30 years while he was trusted ally of the USA and maintained the peace with Israel. So? Name one Arab state that has a democracy with freedom of speech, equality for all, freedom of religion. Then compare Egypt today to Mubarak’s time and ask yourself are the Kopt safer today then they were under Mubarak for example. Obama threw Mubarak under the bus, a 30 years ally of the USA as if he was yesterday’s garbage. In fact as Arab leaders go he was pretty mild. Anti- Semite Obama is not only a danger to Israel he is a danger to Egyptians because he sided with The Muslim Brotherhood calling it “MODERATE! Egyptian women are forced to forget the short dream of equality they had for a few days. Barbers in Egypt have been warned that soon they would not be allowed to shave beards anymore. Does this bother you? Does it bother you that Kopt, the original Egyptians from before the Arabs came out of Arabia are fleeing Egypt in great numbers. Does this bother you? It does me that Christians anywhere in the middle east have to flee the Arab “Democracies.” Israel in fact is the only state in the whole Middle east where Christians are thriving protect by the government with freedom of religion unparalleled anywhere over there.numbers. Does this bother you? It does me that Christians anywhere in the middle east have to flee the Arab “Democracies.” Israel in fact is the only state in the whole Middle east where Christians are thriving protect by the government with freedom of religion unparalleled anywhere over there. Of course I will vote to replace anti- Semite Obama.

Erdogan was elected PM in 2003, Poupic… while your beloved GW Bush was president.

Poupicsays:

November 4, 2012 - 1:49 pm

I did not vote for Bush nor for his father I was a Democrat then, not anymore!

yevkasays:

November 2, 2012 - 1:30 pm

He knew well enough not to vote to go to war on a liar’s errand in Iraq. Not bad in my opinion. They never did find those weapons of non-existence which is because there were no weapons in there first place.

It appears that you are infected with severe amnesia. Although I am not a Baker fan, at least he is telling the truth. His motto is F”” the Jews they don’t vote for us anyway. Obama’s motto is F””” the Jews, they vote for me anyway. BTW, who ordered the Galaxys to resupply the IDF around the clock in 1973? Hint, it wasn’t Barack Hussein Obama.

altershmaltersays:

October 31, 2012 - 7:42 pm

That would have been one Richard M. Nixon who had to twist Kissinger’s arm (probably legs and torso, too) and, figuratively, send Henry K to sulk in a corner while the arms were delivered.
Do you really mean to chide the Pres for failing to send arms to Israel when he was 12 years old? Brett Favre couldn’t get the Packers to the SuperBowl in 1981…he was in junor high school.
RE: Baker. I have zero respect for anyone who would utter such a statement in any context. And it WAS his boss who refused to help Israel…do you think Bush One was not influenced by his buddy?
The neo-cons are itching for a war…almost anywhere…and a Pres. Romney hasn’t got the cajones to say no to them. We are a war-weary country and Israel+Jews everywhere will feel the wrath of the US populus if we send troops back to the Middle East…I can just hear it , “F**k those Jews.”

BS – What foreign policy expertise did Obama have before you guilt ridden idiots voted for him? Or, to steal a phrase from Ronald Reagan, it’s not that Obama knows so little about foreign policy, it’s that so much of what he knows is wrong.

Thank you, Altershmalter. You’re so right. All of these neocons who are foaming at the mouth here forget that Iran was strengthened by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, since the Iran-Iraq conflict kept Iran preoccupied. No one likes Morsi in Egypt, but the overthrow of Mubarak was inevitable. The policy of every Republican administration of looking the other way while Saudi Arabia financed Muslim extremism throughout the area helped lead to the “Arab Spring”.

I’m with you. I was a life-long Democrat from a family of Democrats AND a delegate for Hillary Clinton in 2008. The DNC made a terrible decision to lurch to the hard left and anoint Barack Obama based on empty promises and Bush hate. Pre 2008 I would have thought it unthinkable to vote for anyone with an R after their name but from the gate Obama made my skin crawl.
Obama cares for Jews no more than he cared for Chris Stevens and the 3 other Americans murdered in Benghazi.
Four more years of Obama will be a disaster for America and Israel.

Poupicsays:

October 31, 2012 - 1:57 pm

In 2004 I was still a fanatic Democrat and heard Obama speaking at the convention. On the spot I hoped that one day I would have the chance to vote for him for President. By the time the 2008 season came I had already found out about Wright, Farrakhan, Khalidi and other gang members… Then right on TV Wright came up with his: “Jews won’t let me see Obama!” Obama’s response was his speech on race in Philadelphia, a real straw man. The Clinton’s and the Republicans were like deer in the headlight. They said nothing afraid to be labeled racists by this anti- Semite Obama. Romney knows about Wright’s “Them Jews won’t let me see Obama!” and another one: “God damn America!” This from the declared “Spiritual mentor who married me, baptized my daughter and gave me the title of my book.” Romney won’t touch this afraid to be called a racist by racist Obama again! Obama threw Wright in the garbage bin never to speak off him or to him because he is a liability to Obama’s political future. Show the video’s! There is still time to stick the truth to anti- Semite Obama.

Another idiotic, and slanderous canard. You seem to ignore that our relationship with Israel has been strong, is stronger than ever and most Israeli officials understand that reality. The USA wants to seek a two-state solution for the region and a majority of Israelis agree. pressuring the US into another Middle East war is not the path to go and dealing with Iran has been a long-term problem for many presidents since Carter. As to Bush 43, most people have already designated him as one of the worst failures in our history. In the Sienna College Presidential Poll of 400 leading American historians Bush 43 is rated number 39, just above some our biggest failures over 200 years.

Hobbessays:

October 31, 2012 - 8:43 pm

“Another idiotic, and slanderous canard. You seem to ignore that our relationship with Israel has been strong, is stronger than ever and most Israeli officials understand that reality.”

FDR did not close the door to Jews- more than half the people who immigrated to the US between 1933 and 1938 were Jews and they filled the quotas.But the quotas for Germans and Austrians was small, and filled mostly by Jews. When State Department officials like Breckenridge Long, who were delaying legitimate immigration, were discovered, immigration was placed out of their hands. Congress enforced strict quotas that were established in 1924 and Herbert Hoover after the Crash issued an executive order calling on the INS to be very tough on immigration with few exceptions. Most of the officials in the State Department were Southerners and other careerists appointed by three Republican Administrations. Long, from a well=place southern family was friendly with FDR, but the President was unaware of his anti-Semitic feelings until a report written by Henry Morgenthau Jr. Broad brush accusations are not only non-factual, but slanderous. Read Richard Breitman’s scholarly work, “Refugees and Rescue,”: and learn all the efforts FDR attempted to get around Congress and find solutions for refugee Jews.

Poupicsays:

October 31, 2012 - 4:56 pm

Did you ever hear of “The buck stops here?” Roosevelt was the President and many Jews died as a result of not allowing Jews in. Part of my family went up in smoke as a result. That is fact not slander. Obama is an anti- Semite. Let him sue me if he can prove otherwise. He can’t!

I could give a damn what you think because your knowledge of history is nil! Read a little before you shoot your mouth off and show how truly ignorant you are. 90% of the Jews killed were behind the Oder-Neise River, Read Lucy Davidowicz’s book, “The War Against the Jews” and scores of others which tell the real story regarding Jews, European collaborators and Jew haters here. As to Jews being saved, yes, more could have been, But over 90% of Americans polled by Gallup in November of 1941 stated that they would not go to war to save Britain. So how many would have lifted a finger to save Jews? Get a life and wake up to the reality of the time and what FDR had to deal with reflective of the American First Group, the Liberty League, the German American Bund (40% of All America had some German blood in 1930) and all the British and Jewish hate groups.

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 4:31 am

My knowledge of history beside real knowledge, I lived it! I still have nightmare about it. Both the USA and Britain refused to bomb the concentration camps or the railways leading to them. The excuse was and still is that they could not spare that to the war effort. We now have picture of bombers flying over Auszchwitz! There was a gentlemen’s agreement between the US, Canada and Britain. They in fact did not only not help the Jews they made sure Jews would die. Canada’s PM “One is too many!” (Jews escaping to Canada). Britain closing the door to Jews trying to escape to Palestine, The White Papers. Roosevelt and the USA closing it’s doors to Jews. What did the US Jews do then? They voted for Roosevelt! Just like they are still voting for anti- Semite Obama today. Eating lox and bagels doesn’t make one a Jew. Knowing Jewish history, caring about fellow Jews is that what counts to be a Jew. Stand up and vote anti- Semite Obama out for the sake of the Jewish nation. Beside, your great grand children will still be paying Obama’s spending their money. At this time if Obama is elected, China will by the US bit by bit. When done they will repair the damage, don’t worry.

They voted for FDR because they knew he was their friend and history reflects that reality. Your credentials of a Jew is not the question. Your credentials as a thinking individual is severely under question. Simplistic nostrums to complex problems reflect your true agenda. No matter how much you scream and yell, no matter how much you distort history to fit your specious argument, the election will be held, Obama will win and Israel enjoy the full support America can give. Get a life!

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 8:39 pm

Jews voted for Roosevelt because this is what they always did because of their political bent that made them forget their fellow Jews as less important than their local political needs and aims. No one can deny the close door, the refusal to bomb the extermination camps or even just the railroads leading to the camps, the Saint Louis nightmare… This is history, not a fabrication. Today the same is in the making by another anti- Semite: Barak Obama. Of course, as a survivor of the Shoa I never vote knowingly for an anti- Semite. I will be sorry for the rest of my life for having voted for anti- Semite Carter. Twice!

Jews voted for Roosevelt, Poupic you idiot, because unlike his Republican predecessor, Hoover, Roosevelt cared about those who did not have jobs, housing, or health care. It was Roosevelt who enumerated the concept of the “Four Freedoms” (1941 Inagural address):
Freedom of speech and expression;Freedom of worship;Freedom from want;Freedom from fear
by the way, at the start of his third term.

Poupicsays:

November 4, 2012 - 2:03 pm

I know all the excuses as to why US Jews voted for Roosevelt. It doesn’t justify the closed doors to my people escaping the Shoa, refusing to bomb the railroad to the extermination camps or the extermination camps. Million of Jews could have been saved and your parents voted for Roosevelt? You still have the time to vote another monster anti- Semite, Obama out of office next Tuesday. Why not do the right thing for once?

Roosevelt had nothing to
do with the quotas and no interest in the Jews. If someone had
mentioned the Jews to him, he would have said that he was fighting a war to save Western Civilization and Democracy–he had no time for an unimportant group like the Jews. He didn’t even bother bombing the railroads that would have prevented the Germans from taking the Jews
to the death camps.

He put Jews in high places because they were people who were bright and capable. That they were also Jewish was irrelevant to him.

Jews were not of the slightest importance until the Holocaust was revealed and Israel was established.

Again, totally inaccurate, false and a perversion of history. Your knowledge is limited to rumor and myth. read Sir Martin Gilbert’s “The Allies and Auschwitz,” considered one of the definitive histories of that era. Gilbert is Jewish, Churchill’s official biographer and considered the greatest living expert on The Holocaust. Don’t take my work, G-d forbid! As to the bombing of the railroad tracks, there is chapter and verse on its impossibility, it being never recommended by the Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy and their is scads of evidence to support that statement.

As to the Jews who continue to excoriate FDR, I pity them. In a world and a country of virulent anti-Semites, the Jews had one strong ally who understood, that to save the world and the Jews was to win the war. Bleat all you want. In time you’ll be dust and forgotten, and FDR will be lauded by a free world for countless generations.

In the ongoing discussion regarding the bombing of Auschwitz,
I have included with this essay a declassified exchange of letters between John J. McCloy and John Pehle. John Pehle was the Executive Director of the War Refugee Board and John McCloy was the Assistant Secretary of War. For what it is worth, McCloy made his argument in 1944 about the problem of long-range
bombing. Of course this does not mention the opposition of David Ben-Gurion and the members of the Jewish Agency. As to FDR’s supposed vetoing or rejection of this effort, there is no evidence that FDR ever commented or was asked to comment of the efficacy of bombing Auschwitz.
(Also please note the dates of the exchange of letters in the attachment!) Of course later it was determined, in opposition to McCloy’s letter that there were numerous raids from Foggia, Italy to the Auschwitz region a 2600 mile roundtrip! Yes there were many air reconnaissance photos taken over the area that included Auschwitz, and there were also numerous raids, late in 1944, directed at the various knownindustrial plants in the near vicinity, like the synthetic oil production plantat Monowitz. According to reports, “air reconnaissance photographs of the camp were taken accidentally during 1944 by aircraft seeking to photograph nearby military-industrial targets, but no effort was made to analyze them.” (According to Martin Gilbert in his book “Auschwitz
and the Allies, page 302-3, the quality of the photos was poor.”)

But unfortunately when Allied long-range bombers were able
to make flights from our airbase in Foggia, Italy, with long-range fighter support, they were unaware of what was going on down below in the “death camps.” Could they then have bombed the marshalling yards at Birkenau? Yes, they could have, but by that time all activity had really ceased and the Germans by November 29, 1944 were dismantling the crematoria at Auschwitz, and making efforts to re-locate, or kill thebalance of the Jews that remained. By the December 27th roll call,18,751 Jews remained. In fact during some of those late December days when thecrematoria was being dismantled, errant bombs dropped by Allied raiders did hit
Auschwitz killing some German guards.

Information regarding Auschwitz was available to the Allies during years 1940–1943 by accurate and frequent reports of Polish Army Captain Witold Pilecki. Pilecki was the only known person to volunteer to be imprisoned at Auschwitz concentration camp, spending 945 days at Auschwitz not only actively gathering evidence of genocide and supplying it to the British in
London by Polish resistance movement but also organizing resistance structures at the camp.

His first report was smuggled outside in November 1940. He eventually escaped on April 27, 1943, but even his
personal report of mass killings was dismissed as exaggeration by the Allies, as were his previous ones. This changed with receipt of the very detailed report of two prisoners, Rudolf Vrba
and AlfredWetzler who escaped on April 7, 1944 which finally convinced most Allied leaders of the truth about Auschwitz in
the middle of 1944.

Auschwitz-Birkenau claimed more
victims than any other German Nazi extermination camp despite coming into use after all the others. In 1941, 1.1 million Jews were murdered, largely by massshootings in the occupied territories. In 1942, 2.7 million Jews were murdered, many in Chelmno, Sobibor,
Belzec,and Treblinka, the extermination camps built in occupied Poland specifically to destroy Poland’s three million Jews. Only 200,000 were killed at Auschwitz.

In 1943, some 500,000 Jews were killed, half of whom were killed in Auschwitz. With the destruction of Poland’s Jews mostly complete, theother four camps were closed by the end of 1943. Auschwitz alone continued to operate, both as a giant slave labor complex and an extermination facility dedicated to the genocide of Jews from the rest of Nazi-occupied Europe

The busiest time for Auschwitz as
an extermination camp was from April to June 1944, when it was the center for the massacre of Hungary’s Jews. Hungary
was an ally of Germany during the war but had resisted turning over its Jews to the Germans until Germany sent troops to occupy Hungary in March 1944. In 56 days from April until the end of June 1944, 436,000 Hungarian Jews, half of the pre-war population, were deported to Auschwitz and to their deaths. Jews continued to arrive from other parts of Nazi Europe as well. The incoming volume was so great that the SS at Auschwitz resorted to burning corpses in open-air pits as well as the crematoria. The total
of over 400,000 Jews gassed during the Hungarian Action in early 1944 represented some two-thirds of all the 600,000 Jews exterminated in that year and a third of all the Jews killed at Auschwitz in the two and a half years that it operated as an extermination camp. According to Martin Gilbert, in his book “Auschwitz and the Allies,” epilogue, page 319, “…until the 3rd week of June 1944, the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau had kept their secret, both as the principal
mass murder site of the Jews of Europe , and also as the destination of so many hundreds of deportation trains from France, Holland, Belgium …”

As to the photos, in fact, it was not until the 1970s that these aerial shots of Auschwitz were looked at carefully. (There were at least 20 million aerial photos taken by the Allies in WWII. When I saw the report of the photos on CBS with Walter Cronkite, there was no evidence that Auschwitz was the so-called “terminus.”) Starting with a plea from the Slovakian rabbi Weissmandl in May 1944, there was a growing campaign to persuade the Allies to bomb Auschwitz or the railway lines leading to it. At one point Winston
Churchill ordered that such a plan be prepared, but he was told that
bombing the camp would most likely kill prisoners without disrupting the killing operation, and that bombing the railway lines was not technically feasible. Later several nearby military targets were bombed. One bomb accidentally fell into the camp and killed some prisoners. The debate over what could have been done, or what should have been attempted even if success was
unlikely, has continued heatedly ever since.

David Ben-Gurion, (1886-1973, Prime Minister of Israel
1949-63) the Chairman of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, and later the first Prime Minister of Israel, in June of 1944, responded to a proposal that the Allies be asked to bomb the extermination camps. At a meeting presided over by Ben-Gurion, the Jewish Agency voted eleven to one against the bombing option.

By early June, when over one-third of the remaining
Hungarian Jewish community had been deported to Auschwitz, Jacob Rosenheim, a leader of the world’s orthodox Jews, and others wrote Morgenthau, the War Department and Joseph Pehle of the War Refugee Board imploring them to bomb the
railway lines from Hungary to the death camp at Auschwitz.” Joseph Pehle,who was a great advocate for the Jews, wrote McCloy expressing his doubts about the about bombing of Auschwitz. The Wa rRefugee Board determined that the bombing of the tracks would do little to stop the killing, because they would be swiftly repaired. Later McCloy used about the same language and rationale to veto any further requests to bomb Auschwitz itself. (The Conquerors, by Michael Beschloss,
page 64.)

On August 9, 1944, the first such request came to John
McCloy, (1895-1989) the Assistant Secretary of War (1941-5), regarding the bombing of Auschwitz, by Leon Kubowitzki, head of the Rescue Committee of the World Jewish Congress, in which he forwarded, without endorsement, a request
from Mr. Ernest Frischer of the Czechoslovak State Council (in London exile.) Ironically Mr. Kubowitzki argued against the bombing of Auschwitz because “the first victims will be Jews.” With regard to whether John McCloy ever actually asked FDR about the bombing, there is no evidence of any meeting and no evidence in any of his extensive interviews or in his personal papers that the subject was brought up. But, in a recent book, The Conquerors by Michael Beschloss, the author asserts that John McCloy had told Henry
Morgenthau III, that he had asked FDR about bombing the camps. (William vanden Heuval castigated Beschloss for his
patchwork and shoddy work, in a long documented piece, and Beschloss apologized
to him!)

For decades after World War II, McCloy insisted that he had never talked to the President on that subject. He told Washington Post
reporter Morton Mintz in 1983 that he never talked with FDR about the subject. Even David Wyman in his 1984 book, The Abandonment of the Jews, wrote that the bombing requests “almost certainly” did not reach Roosevelt. Later McCloy, in an interview in 1986, three years before his death, had an unpublished exchange with Henry Morgenthau III, who was researching his book, Mostly Morganthaus, claimed that he hadspoken to FDR about the bombing of Auschwitz, Supposedly FDR “made it very
clear” to him that the bombing would do no good, and “we would have been accused of destroying Auschwitz by bombing these innocent people.” Of course McCloy was telling this to Morgenthau’s son, decades after his father Henry Jr. had referred to him as an “oppressor of the Jews.” Maybe McCloy’s true feelings
were exposed when he also stated to Morganthau’s son, “I didn’t want to bomb Auschwitz…It seemed to be a bunch of fanatic Jews who deemed that if you didn’t bomb, it was an indication of lack of venom against Hitler…” (The Conquerors,
Michael Beschloss, page 65-7.)

The last selection took place on October 30, 1944. The next month, Heinrich Himmler ordered the crematoria destroyed before the Red Army reached the camp. The gas chambers of Birkenau were blown up by the SS in January 1945 in an attempt to hide the German crimes from the advancing Soviet troops. On January 20, the SS command sent orders to murder all the prisoners remaining in the camp, but in the chaos of the Nazi retreat the order was never
carried out.

Ironically on January 17, 1945,
Nazi personnel had started to evacuate the facility; nearly 60,000 prisoners, most of those remaining, were forced on a death march
to the camp toward Wodzisław Śląski (German: Loslau).
Some 20,000 Auschwitz prisoners made it to Bergen-Belsen
concentration camp in Germany, where they were liberated
by the British in April 1945. Those too weak or sick to walk were left behind; about 7,500 prisoners were liberated by the 322nd Rifle
Division of the Red Army on January 27, 1945. Among the artifacts of automated murder found by the Russians were 348,820 men’s suits and 836,255 women’s garments.

April 1944 – November 1944 SS and Police authorities deport
more than 585,000 Jews to Auschwitz.

October 7, 1944 Members of the Jewish prisoner “special
detachment” (Sonderkommando) that was forced to remove bodies from the gas chambers and operate the crematoria stage an uprising. They successfully blow up Crematorium IV and kill several guards. Women prisoners had smuggled gunpowder out of nearby factories to members of the Sonderkommando. The SS quickly suppresses the revolt and kills all the Sonderkommando members. On January 6, 1945, just weeks before Soviet forces liberate the camp, the SS will also hang four women who smuggled
gunpowder into the camp.

October 30, 1944 The last selections take place on the
arrival ramp at Birkenau. 1,689 people from a transport from Terezin aresent to the gas chambers.[81]

November 25, 1944 As Soviet forces continue to approach, SS
chief Heinrich Himmler orders the destruction of the Auschwitz-Birkenaugas chambers and crematoria. During this SS attempt to destroy the evidence of mass killings, prisoners will be forced to dismantle and dynamite the structure

Poupic: “Obama is an anti-semite.” What a good facist Republican you are! Wasn’t it Joseph Goebbels who said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people believe it? You, Rove and Romney… what a sad state of affairs the American people are in.

Poupicsays:

November 4, 2012 - 1:59 pm

I am now an independent because my party of 3 decades is now infested with anti- Semitism. But you, a US Jew of course you support anti- Semite Obama just like your parents supported Roosevelt who closed the doors to my family and many, many Jews who went up in smoke as a result. The St Louis macabre returning the Jews to be burn in Hitler’s ovens. At best you are a capo supporting an enemy of the Jewish nation. I will do the right thing Tuesday voting to replace anti- Semite Obama. You still have a chance to do the right thing and vote to replace anti- Semite Obama too.

Does the St. Lous mean anything to you? At least Gustav Schroeder the captain of the ship was recognized by Yad Vashem for his heroic effort to save about 900 German Jews while FDR sent them to their certain death.

Nobody, I mean nobody believed Hitler was going to do what he said he would. He was a joke to them. Not too long before Lindbergh, then perhaps the greatest American hero said any war would be for the Jews and English. It’s tragic that more could have been saved, but the attitudes of the American elite had to be changed. Now people are paying attention to Iran and doing something about their tirades and sick promises.

Beatrix17says:

October 31, 2012 - 9:51 pm

Of course Roosevelt knew, he was President of the United States. He just didn’t think Jews were any more important than Clinton thought the people of Rawanda were. Had he lived, he may have felt as guilty as Clinton eventually did.

Knowing of the plight of the Jews begs the issue. The NY Times, owned by Jews, reported on the back pages the murder of over 1 million Jews long before the Death Camps were put into use. The issue of Jewish Immigration was most strictly an issue of Germany, where almost 80% of the Jews had left by the out break of the war. Of the 1930 population of 500,000 German Jews, less than 2000 had been murdered before Kristalnacht in 1938, and few Jews, no less, any one else, expected a policy of mass murder or the Holocaust by Nazis towards Jews outside of Germany. Their policy before the Wansee Conference in 1942, wa of ridding Jews from Germany, taking their property and making Germany Judenrein, or free of Jews. The war aim to rid Europe of Jews may have been an aim of Hitler and his brigands, but that was never actuated until millions of Jews came under their control at the collapse of Poland, the Baltic States and with the invasion of Russia in June of 1941. The vast percentage of the 6 million Jews that were murdered were in the Eastern part of Europe; Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Russia and other parts outside the reach of the the Western Allies.

Therefore, the relatively few Jews in Holland, Denmark, Belgium and Luxembourg were vulnerable to round ups, The large amount of Jews in France were persecuted by the French collaborationists as much as their Nazi overlords. If the US national policy would have been to aid refugees, even Jews, maybe thousands more could have been saved. Still, over 150,000 did get to America. The blame for the fate of European Jewry lay with the Nazis, their allies and the indifference of Britain and the collaboration of France. FDR was one of the few friends the Jewish people had. In fact, one-third of the Jewish population was indifferent to Jewish immigration for fear of more anti-Semitism, one-third opposed Jewish settlement in the US because they feared that there would never be a Jewish Homeland if European Jews did not go directly to Palestine and the balance of Jews wanted unlimited and unrestricted immigration, which was legally impossible. That is the history and you may tweak it any way you wish. But there is much fault to go around. Read the Arthur Goldberg report written in the 1980’s with Professor Finger of CCNY on Jewish indifference to immigration in the 1930’s.

Let’s not forget that, after the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, restricting immigration to the US was the law of the land. And left-wing Jews had a significant role in the passage of that law:

“Samuel Gompers, a Jewish immigrant and founder of the AFL, supported the Act because he opposed the cheap labor that immigration represented, despite the fact that the Act would sharply reduce Jewish immigration.
Though the law’s quota system targeted immigrants based on their nation of origin rather than ethnicity or religion, Jewish immigration was a central concern. Hearings about the legislation cited the radical Jewish population of New York’s Lower East Side as the prototype of immigrants who could never be assimilated.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 4:41 am

False! My family was mostly in France. Roosevelt closed the door to them. Most went up in smoke as a result. Thank you Roosevelt! for making nice to US Jews while exterminating my family. Ask me why US Jews make me sick!

The fact that US Jews make you sick, reflects a pathetic asinine and disgusting self-hatred. Who gives a good G-d damn who you hate or what bile you wish to vomit on a whole people. Who really cares? Maybe some fellow traveler morons who haunt these sites? It is know-nothing low-lifes like yourself who fulminate self-hatred and anti-Semitism. The world moves on, the divisions within Jews are not unlike the divisions within all peoples. There were many Western European Jews who would never be seen “dead” in the shtels of the Pale of the Settlement. So jerks like yourself, prove the old adage, that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. In your case, I emphasize the word “little.”

Poupicsays:

November 2, 2012 - 10:58 am

You need to treat this sad and painful condition of yours. Some hospitals specialize in your terrible hurt that normally has no cure. But maybe they can calm you with heavy dosage of something.

genelevitsays:

November 1, 2012 - 1:08 pm

You are right: mass killings begun only with the invasion of Soviet Union in 1941. However, the persecution of Jews started well before that and FDR knew about it. The history teaches us: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” That is why we need strong Israel and American President who will be for us.

Many Jews, gentiles and the president were well aware of the persecution of Jews in Germany and FDR spoke out about it. His mother was deeply involved in the rescue and resettlement of Jews, but their were limits to what the administration could do. If FDR had not run in 1940, we may have had a pro-German appeasement leaning government in power. You cannot remove that reality. Charles Lindbergh, a known anti-Semite, with a great following, could have easily ascended to a leadership position. Don’t forget that reality. If America ever attempted to enter WWII with the main issue to save European Jewry, it would have never happened. FDR kept the pro-allied coalition together, stretched the law on arming our maritime fleet, pushed through Lend Lease, was hindered by the Neutrality Act, did all he could to help arm Britain with arms and engineered the 50 destroyers for Western Hemisphere bases deal.

Short-sighted, uninformed revisionism won’t heal or reverse the past. Thank G-d for FDR or the war would have been lost and all you fellow co-religionists would have been long gone. A post German victory in Europe, with a defeated England would have encouraged a pro-German government here and since the American population’s largest minority group was of German blood (40% in 1930) it would have been very hospitable to using Jews as a trading pawn for survival in a Nazi-dominated world. Wake up!

Knowing of the plight of the Jews begs the issue. The NY Times, owned by Jews, reported on the back pages the murder of over 1 million Jews long before the Death Camps were put into use. The issue of Jewish Immigration was most strictly an issue of Germany, where almost 80% of the Jews had left by the out break of the war. Of the 1930 population of 500,000 German Jews, less than 2000 had been murdered before Kristalnacht in 1938, and few Jews, no less, any one else, expected a policy of mass murder or the Holocaust by Nazis towards Jews outside of Germany. Their policy before the Wansee Conference in 1942, wa of ridding Jews from Germany, taking their property and making Germany Judenrein, or free of Jews. The war aim to rid Europe of Jews may have been an aim of Hitler and his brigands, but that was never actuated until millions of Jews came under their control at the collapse of Poland, the Baltic States and with the invasion of Russia in June of 1941. The vast percentage of the 6 million Jews that were murdered were in the Eastern part of Europe; Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Russia and other parts outside the reach of the the Western Allies.

Therefore, the relatively few Jews in Holland, Denmark, Belgium and Luxembourg were vulnerable to round ups, The large amount of Jews in France were persecuted by the French collaborationists as much as their Nazi overlords. If the US national policy would have been to aid refugees, even Jews, maybe thousands more could have been saved. Still, over 150,000 did get to America. The blame for the fate of European Jewry lay with the Nazis, their allies and the indifference of Britain and the collaboration of France. FDR was one of the few friends the Jewish people had. In fact, one-third of the Jewish population was indifferent to Jewish immigration for fear of more anti-Semitism, one-third opposed Jewish settlement in the US because they feared that there would never be a Jewish Homeland if European Jews did not go directly to Palestine and the balance of Jews wanted unlimited and unrestricted immigration, which was legally impossible. That is the history and you may tweak it any way you wish. But there is much fault to go around. Read the Arthur Goldberg report written in the 1980’s with Professor Finger of CCNY on Jewish indifference to immigration in the 1930’s.

.The German ship, “St. Louis” was one of three ships
that brought passengers, including Jews, to Cuba at that time. Cuba, because of the influence of local Nazis, put onerous restrictions on Jewish immigration. Already 6000 Jewish immigrants were living in Cuba, most without legal documentation. Also a house-to-house check was being made for all German refugees and there was great fear from the Joint Distribution Committee
in the United States that a pogrom was being planned if more Jews were granted asylum. When a $500 cash bond was put up for each passenger, amounting to $500,000, the Cubans
refused.

There were definitive conflicts between Batista and Manuel Benitez, who was receiving bribes for each illegal alien allowed into Cuba. Strongman Colonel Fulgencio Bastista wanted his “cut” or would end the practice. Two other ships had already just arrived, the British ship “Orduna” and the French ship, “Flanders.”
Within a twenty-four hour period more than 1200 refugees had arrived from three European ports. The Cubans had just passed a law limiting to 1500 the number of immigrants that could be yearly allowed to land. Eventually, after a collapse in negotiations, the ship left port and while off Florida, on June 4, the figurehead
President Bru relented and said that they could land for $650 per head. The Joint Committee refused to pay the extra dollars. They thought there would be more ships and the price would continue to escalate. The “St. Louis,” amidst all of the negotiation with Cuban and the American officials, who were trying to get around our strict
immigration laws, turned seaward to Germany. The JDC was besieged with criticism from the American Jewish community and its
friends, but felt they were being blackmailed by the Cubans. Many have stated that the passengers were “returned to Germany and certain death for all abroad.”.Of the 936 Jews on board who had left Hamburg, 29 disembarked in Havana, 907 sailed back to Europe; 288 disembarked in England and lived through the Holocaust. The remaining 619 went to France, Belgium and Holland. The 392 of 619 who had disembarked at Antwerp, survived the war. The remaining 227 were murdered by the Nazis. The USHolocaust Museum estimates more than two-thirds of the passengers survived the war. Also, in June of 1939, it certainly was not yet the Holocaust. War had not been declared, over 75% of the Jews living in Germany, at the time of Hitler’s ascendancy to power, had either left Germany or had been forced out. German policy was “Judenrein” not extermination. Up until Kristalnacht, under 1000 Jews had been killed in Germany from1933 until late 1938. Even up until the war, which started on September 3,1939, relatively a small percentage of the remaining Jews from the 1930 population
of 500,000 had been killed. The Holocaust really emerged from a number of distinct occurrences. The first was the invasion and conquering of Poland, and the fact that millions of Jews in Poland came under the direct control of the Nazis. The second would be the invasion andconquering of the Baltic States and the siege of the Soviet Union, wheremillions of other Jews came under Nazi control, and third would be the Wannsee Conference, in a Berlin
suburb, on January 12, 1942 where the “Final Solution” was
articulated and planned.

By that time, no power on earth could have saved the vast majority of 6 million or so Jews that were eventually killed. In June of
1939, few in Europe really believed there would be war, no less World War. Few Jews, outside of Germany, thought their lives were eminently at risk, and the Low Countries and France were not invaded until the spring of 1940. Most Jews believed that Germany only was interested in ridding itself of Jews. But, it is true, that many Jews wished fervently to get out of Europe. These
are incontrovertible facts reported in numerous histories of that era.

Screw you! A smart man understands that when he knows nothing, to shut up. Take that advice, you know nothing!

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 8:18 pm

There you go! Exactly a so call Jew from the USA. The day you know as much as I do about what happen in the Shoa will never come. Lucky you, lover of anti- Semite Obama and defender of anti- Semite Roosevelt.

Beatrix17says:

November 1, 2012 - 8:54 pm

Your history is interesting, but if you’re trying to prove that no one expected the Holocaust, or knew about the Holocaust and no one could have done anything to save the Jews, you’re wrong.

Again, you beg the issue. Many people knew, many people were aware and many people could do little or ignored the problem, including most Jews themselves. My grandfather was a well-seasoned world traveler and visited Germany every year for business for decades until 1937. His Jewish contractors and suppliers in Sebnitz, Germany, were still denying the reality of Hitler up to his last trip in 1937. Many Jews here were fearful of stirring up more American anti-Semitism, and FDR had a large kitchen cabinet of Jews, which included Samuel I Rosenman, his lawyer and his friend and Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. As to immigration, it was the hot button of the era, and the later debate over the Wagner-Rodgers Bill, which would allowed in refugee children (Jews) had virtually zero support from Southern Democrats and Northern Conservative Republicans. Congressman Adolph Sabath and Emmanuel Celler, Northern Jewish Representatives attempted to enlarge the quota and were threatened with a complete closure of the the yearly quota allowance. They backed off. FDR understood the resistance and had the Wagner-Rodgers Bill withdrawn. He needed Souther support for Lend-Lease and that that was the practical trade off. It had nothing to do with abandoning the immigration issue, but the pragmatic understanding that it had no traction.

Fighting these age old battles with new revisionist emotion and angst will not change the facts about the era, the problems of domestic politics, American anti-Semitism, xenophobic fear of foreigners and large levels of unemployment. As to the ability of America to rescue Eastern European Jews from the jaws of the Nazi-killing machine, that is a fantasy.

Therefore, the debate over FDR’s intentions is meaningless, his administration worked with Jews, had Jewish input and obviously vast Jewish support. Stephen Wise, America’s most important Jew had FDR’s ear, struggled to help European Jewry and understand the obstacles related to mostly American disinterest.

There is no doubt that an extra 100 thousand Jews may have been rescued, but that is mere speculation. If the French collaborationists had not been so efficient, Western Jewish loss would have been less. Ironically there are more documented cases of Polish help for Jews then in France. Read Sir Martin Gilbert’s book about Righteous Gentiles.

By the way, Obama will win on Tuesday, he will receive broad Jewish support and I’ll be in Palm Springs enjoying the sun and toasting his victory!

Beatrix17says:

November 3, 2012 - 12:05 pm

Your recitation of
history is interesting though a little long for a discussion board.
You only go astray when you try to insert your interpretation of what
you think it meant. If you think Obama likes Jews, I can see why you
think Roosevelt did. If Obama wins, you have your glass of wine.
I’ll do the worrying that you should be doing.

leucippesays:

November 4, 2012 - 12:17 pm

thanks, Richard Garfunkel, for trying to educate some of the most ignorant folks writing hateful, malicious, and totally unnuanced pronounements about historical events.

.The German ship, “St. Louis” was one of three ships
that brought passengers, including Jews, to Cuba at that time. Cuba, because of the influence of local Nazis, put onerous restrictions on Jewish immigration. Already 6000 Jewish immigrants were living in Cuba, most without legal documentation. Also a house-to-house check was being made for all German refugees and there was great fear from the Joint Distribution Committee
in the United States that a pogrom was being planned if more Jews were granted asylum. When a $500 cash bond was put up for each passenger, amounting to $500,000, the Cubans
refused.

There were definitive conflicts between Batista and Manuel Benitez, who was receiving bribes for each illegal alien allowed into Cuba. Strongman Colonel Fulgencio Bastista wanted his “cut” or would end the practice. Two other ships had already just arrived, the British ship “Orduna” and the French ship, “Flanders.”
Within a twenty-four hour period more than 1200 refugees had arrived from three European ports. The Cubans had just passed a law limiting to 1500 the number of immigrants that could be yearly allowed to land. Eventually, after a collapse in negotiations, the ship left port and while off Florida, on June 4, the figurehead
President Bru relented and said that they could land for $650 per head. The Joint Committee refused to pay the extra dollars. They thought there would be more ships and the price would continue to escalate. The “St. Louis,” amidst all of the negotiation with Cuban and the American officials, who were trying to get around our strict
immigration laws, turned seaward to Germany. The JDC was besieged with criticism from the American Jewish community and its
friends, but felt they were being blackmailed by the Cubans. Many have stated that the passengers were “returned to Germany and certain death for all abroad.”.Of the 936 Jews on board who had left Hamburg, 29 disembarked in Havana, 907 sailed back to Europe; 288 disembarked in England and lived through the Holocaust. The remaining 619 went to France, Belgium and Holland. The 392 of 619 who had disembarked at Antwerp, survived the war. The remaining 227 were murdered by the Nazis. The USHolocaust Museum estimates more than two-thirds of the passengers survived the war. Also, in June of 1939, it certainly was not yet the Holocaust. War had not been declared, over 75% of the Jews living in Germany, at the time of Hitler’s ascendancy to power, had either left Germany or had been forced out. German policy was “Judenrein” not extermination. Up until Kristalnacht, under 1000 Jews had been killed in Germany from1933 until late 1938. Even up until the war, which started on September 3,1939, relatively a small percentage of the remaining Jews from the 1930 population
of 500,000 had been killed. The Holocaust really emerged from a number of distinct occurrences. The first was the invasion and conquering of Poland, and the fact that millions of Jews in Poland came under the direct control of the Nazis. The second would be the invasion andconquering of the Baltic States and the siege of the Soviet Union, wheremillions of other Jews came under Nazi control, and third would be the Wannsee Conference, in a Berlin
suburb, on January 12, 1942 where the “Final Solution” was
articulated and planned.

By that time, no power on earth could have saved the vast majority of 6 million or so Jews that were eventually killed. In June of
1939, few in Europe really believed there would be war, no less World War. Few Jews, outside of Germany, thought their lives were eminently at risk, and the Low Countries and France were not invaded until the spring of 1940. Most Jews believed that Germany only was interested in ridding itself of Jews. But, it is true, that many Jews wished fervently to get out of Europe. These
are incontrovertible facts reported in numerous histories of that era.

Mel Kreitzersays:

November 3, 2012 - 5:12 pm

The late George McGovern was a speaker at our synagogue in Cincinnati about 10 years ago. McGovern was a WW2 bomber pilot and a great supporter of Roosevelt. The topic was on whether more could have been done to save the Jews from the death camps and, specifically, whether railroad lines to Auschwitz could have been bombed. McGovern shared the stage with some Holocaust survivors. The most dramatic moment occurred when McGovern, in response to an audience question about whether Roosevelt could have done more, exclaimed “You people didn’t want us to do it!” He was referring to the Jewish Establishment, all great Roosevelt supporters. They didn’t want to rock the boat then. There are parallels now.

I was born after the War. I felt totally humiliated. And not by McGovern.

Beatrix17says:

November 6, 2012 - 4:48 pm

What an idiiot. No wonder McGovern only won one state when he ran for President. Do you really think Jews had any more of a pack mentality then than they do now? Some Jews fought desperately, some were ignorant, and some were indifferent, and many were in between. It didn’t matter. No one was listening.

spostolsays:

November 4, 2012 - 4:05 pm

Garfunkel–thanks for an interesting and factual comment amidst all the nervous chatter. I’m voting for Obama although I would like a better choice –like Lincoln or Jefferson.

Poupic, there is nothing about President Obama which makes him an anti-semite. Please point to ONE instance.
The Republican Party however is the home of the notorious anti-Israel Ron Paul, and his son Rand Paul, as well as an anti-semite named Pat Buchanan. Glad to be in bed with them?

Poupicsays:

November 4, 2012 - 1:42 pm

I have pointed over and over again why Obama is an anti- Semite. No non-anti- Semite would have associated for a minute with Wright or Farrakhan or Rashid Khalidi for example. There are many others. Yes Ron Paul and his son are anti- Semites but they are not running. I was a fanatic Democrat for over 3 decades knocking on doors, answering phones to elect Democrats. I became an Independent when I discovered that the party is infected with anti- Semitism. The latest example? The Democratic convention asked to ratify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel that wasn’t in the platform anymore and was causing Obama problems raising money from Jews. The deafening NO! repeated again with even more force shows that I had been right to quit my party it was already then sick with the virus of anti- Semitism then. Today it is practically gone. No anti biotic exist for this lever of anti- Semitism in the Democratic party. Of course I will vote to replace anti- Semite Obama on Tuesday and so should all of you.

oaklandjsays:

October 31, 2012 - 11:48 am

This article, like all of Lee Smith’s articles here, is designed to do one thing: plant seeds of doubt in younger generations about the long-standing pattern of Jewish votes for Democrats. He and his bosses at The Weekly Standard know that it won’t matter much for this election, but they’re looking long term.

Sadly for them, they’re also hoping what’s worked on evangelicals for the last 50 years will work on Jews. They can keep on dreaming. The Democrats are no weaker on Israel than the Republicans, despite the incessant stream of propaganda saying otherwise that stream 24/7 out of Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media machine. And the vast majority of Jews know it.

Voting Republican not only means buying all the lies the GOP puts out about its and the Democrats’ stance on Israel, it also means betraying a host of Jewish values. They’re beautifully elaborated on by Jay Michaelson in his Zeek/Forward piece:

Voting for Romney means betraying America. It means dramatic cuts to education and social services. It means further infrastructure degradation in exchange for 2 trillion dollars in unnecessary military spending. It means tax cuts for the rich and tax hikes for the middle class. It means returning our healthcare to the broken system we’ve put up with for decades. It means alienating allies and distancing strained relations with Russia and China. It means further inaction on pressing environmental issues. It means slashed investments in science and technology. It means pushing for a constitutional amendment that removes rather than reserves liberty. And it means further selling out to big business and special interest groups. Voting Democrat means standing up for America, and that is the duty of every Jewish AMERICAN.

It’s funny, because Obama got us out of the nosedive of a recession that Bush put us in. Unemployment is back under 8% for the first time in years, and we have seen dozens of months in a row with positive job growth. I’m not going to go vote for people with the same ideas as the people who put us in this in this mess in the first place. Remember, Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We tried trickle down economics with massive military spending increases under Reagan, and that led to the modern deficit problem we have today, then we tried it again under Bush, and that saw more debt, more deficits, and eventually a recession, and now Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to try it again, and they think that we’ll suddenly have no debt and millions of jobs. I guess that means that they, and anyone who thinks like them, fits under Einstein’s definition of crazy. However, Obama wants to go with what works. He wants to rapidly increase infrastructure construction, as seen in the boom times of the 1950s under Eisenhower. He wants to return to the tax and budget scheme that we had under Clinton and we had another period of massive economic growth.

salemstsays:

October 31, 2012 - 1:44 pm

My parents voted straight Democrat seeing every Democrat as the reincarnation of FDR.

I started voting Republican with Reagan and haven’t stopped.
The Jews still voting Democrat are either self-loathing, so successful in the US they’ve renounced Israel and accepted the US as the new Jewish homeland, can’t control their deviant behavior demanding legitimization, or so frightened of Christians who happen to be Israel’s best friends due to historical context they look under their bed before going to sleep looking for them.

To be stuck in a party full of Black anti Semites like Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and the Black Caucus as well as a growing Muslim presence all bent on Israel’s destruction is disgraceful and disgusting.

Jews today don’t even recognize who Israel’s best friends have been for the past 40 years. Republicans.

I agree with Mr. Halevi and, like him, think that Bush-the-first was one of the worst anti-Israeli presidents but I also want to point out that Obama did not encounter any serious crisis yet. No doubt that in the next 4 years Iran will finally get the nuclear bomb (unless something drastic will be done by then). How Obama (or Romney) will react? What if the Al-Qaida-like organization will replace Assad in Syria? What if the new Egyptian government will start to mass troops in Sinai in contradiction to the terms of the peace agreement with Israel? How each of the individuals will react? Who will be firm and who will be willing to “throw Israel under the bus” for the sake of some coalition, European demands or whatever?

Any values expressed by Jay Michaelson are not Jewish values, I can assure you

Richard Rohansays:

October 31, 2012 - 12:02 pm

Mr. Smith’s “analysis” is not terribly deep. First, there’s an obvious question: does expressing criticism of one’s candidate mean that the critic decided not to vote for the candidate come reelection time? It doesn’t mean that at all, and the only ones who might think so are folks who rush to defend anything and everything their “guy” does in office, even if deep down they’re not entirely happy with every action or policy. So the fact that Prof. Dershowitz and Mayor Koch have criticized Obama should not then make it flip-flopping to vote for him for reelection. Second, in terms of Israel policy, even were one to concede that Romney’s stated views are more “pro-Israel,” (and that is not such a matter-of-fact conclusion), they may not be so far apart as to swamp all of the other policies, etc. that our president will have to address. As one of the other posters noted, it’s more than a bit insulting to think that a Harvard Law Professor thinks of nothing other than a candidate’s position on Israel, and then, no matter who slight the difference may be, automatically will vote for the candidate with the “better” position. This brings me to the third point–shocking as it may sound, there ARE a few other issues of modest importance to voters and the country besides Israel. Perhaps voters are assessing the totality of a candidate’s program, crazy as that idea may seem. As for me, I don’t believe the differences between Romney and Obama on Israel are as great as some in the media would like us to believe. And I’m not willing to completely ignore Ehud Barak (certainly no dove these days) when he says that US-Israeli security cooperation has never been better. Are there things I’d prefer Obama do or say vis a vis Israel? Sure. But that’s only part of the evaluation–not the entirety–and to suggest someone is a flip flopper as Mr. Smith has done is pretty lightweight commenting.

tjkesays:

October 31, 2012 - 12:47 pm

I am sorry but you are very wrong. Obama is a clear antisemite, worse than Carter. Mitt Romney is much more pro Israel and will stand with Israel.The cooperation between Israel and USA is at the lowest point.ehud Barak is not a reliable person.
However I and my family we will vote for Romney, because a vote for Romney is a vote for Israel`s security Mr Romney will be on Israel´s side.

yevkasays:

October 31, 2012 - 1:23 pm

An antisemite? That’s really lazy labeling.

Richard Rohansays:

October 31, 2012 - 2:16 pm

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I am obviously not as close to the president as you, and hence was not aware of his anti-semitism. Nor did I appreciate how unreliable Israel’s defense minister is as a barometer of, well, Israeli defense matters. Who would have known?

it is the commentary of most of my jewish friends in NYC, that Mr. Obama has “thrown Israel under the bus.” I’m not sure Mr. Romney will not do the same, however, they are willing to take a chance on rhetoric than to chance another 4 years to what is “known”.
Jewish values, skepticism and Mr. Obama’s track record, is a cause for concern. I’m simply undecided, but still pro Obama.

Obama will get between 70-75% which is on the high side for presidential elections over the last 68 years. Most people respect Obama for his commitment to human and civil rights, his strength in foreign affairs (our world wide respect in poll after after poll has dramatically improved since Bush 43).

We came from a collapse authored by Wall Street, fraught with derivatives, debt-swapping and marketing inflated bundled mortgages. As I recall the Stock Market was at 6600, and job loss in January and February of 2009 was at 800K per month. By the time the blood-letting ended, 8 million jobs were lost from 2008 through the first year of Obama’s administration. Since we bottomed, in the last 3.75 years, 5.5 million jobs were created in the private sector as 700k were lost in the public sector as States were forced to make layoffs.

As to the economy and job creation, the Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

For all you doubters, Democrats have created far more jobs than the GOP.
On a year by year basis- Clinton, Carter, Reagan, LBJ, Truman, Nixon and JFK lead Ford, Bush I and II and Eisenhower by a wide margin. In 28 years the Democrats created 57 million jobs to the GOP’s 36 million in 36 years. Those are the facts. Look it up from the WSJ.

As to the Stock Market, every historical record favors the Democrats.

Stocks Return More With Democrat in White
House: BGOV Barometer

By Bob Drummond – Feb
22, 2012 12:00 AM ET

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors
do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents
standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have
realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A
$1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican
presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

“The market does tend to do better under Democrats than under Republicans,”
Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York, said in a telephone interview. “Is it because Republicans mishandled the economy, or inherited a weak economy? I’ll leave that to others.”

Therefore with jobs, the markets, with civil rights and liberties, with the separation of church and state, and the social safety nets, most educated, free-thinking Jews trust and vote Democratic. The Jews who vote Republican, and I know a number of them, are the Orthodox and often the greedy. What else is new? Jewish values are most often reflected by Democratic candidates and that is why they have deserved our support.

altershmaltersays:

October 31, 2012 - 7:52 pm

Thank you, Richard. As an Orthodox Jew, I am often ashamed of the basis on which my pew-sharers reach their voting conclusions…like the guy who sits behind me who gets a) social security, b) medicare, and c) diisability but d) pays no taxes. He complains that the deficit is too high and there are too many freeloaders in this country. That’s why he’s voting for Romney. (True story!)

Beatrix17says:

November 3, 2012 - 11:38 am

People on Social Security and Medicare earned these benefits by working all their lives.

altershmaltersays:

October 31, 2012 - 7:52 pm

Thank you, Richard. As an Orthodox Jew, I am often ashamed of the basis on which my pew-sharers reach their voting conclusions…like the guy who sits behind me who gets a) social security, b) medicare, and c) diisability but d) pays no taxes. He complains that the deficit is too high and there are too many freeloaders in this country. That’s why he’s voting for Romney. (True story!)

altershmaltersays:

October 31, 2012 - 7:52 pm

Thank you, Richard. As an Orthodox Jew, I am often ashamed of the basis on which my pew-sharers reach their voting conclusions…like the guy who sits behind me who gets a) social security, b) medicare, and c) diisability but d) pays no taxes. He complains that the deficit is too high and there are too many freeloaders in this country. That’s why he’s voting for Romney. (True story!)

There are many issues that cause Jews to vote for Democrats and history has reflected that Democratic presidents are more sincere about Israel’s future than Republicans. One just has to remember the Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan Administrations. Yes, Nixon was a pragmatist, who helped Israel with regards to supplies during the Yom Kippur War. But, aside from that, in his five years in office, he was no real friend of the Jewish States, or Jews in particular.

Bill Clinton was a strong supporter of Israel and he is more in the mainstream of Democrats than Jimmy Carter. The Evangelical fervor for Israel hasn’t rubbed off on Carter, but their true support of a Jewish Israel is questionable. They support Israel as a bulwark against Islam and would fight to the last drop of Jewish blood. The political Christian Right and the Tea Party minority that controls the Republican Party are more indicative of modern day Crusaders. I see no evidence that their spiritual father, Ron Paul has any interest in Israel. One of his main writers and supporters over the years was, and is Lew Rockwell, whose anti-Semitic credentials are well chronicled.

Talk is cheap and Republicans like Reagan and the two Bushes had ample opportunity to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. They had ample opportunity to pressure Saudi Arabia regarding the financing of Hamas and Hezbollah, and only when Sadaam Hussein, their surrogate in the war against Iran, started to lose his mind over Kuwait did they start to realize that their duplicity had created a monster.

Oil politics has affected and directed American diplomacy since the end of WWII and the beginning of the Cold War. As America reaches again energy independence in the coming years and becomes a net exporter, the geopolitical center that the Middle East has become will start to wain.

It is in Israel’s best interest to have a two-state solution for many reasons. It, on one hand, defuses the Palestinian issue as a reason to hate Israel, the West and the United States, and on the other hand it secures a Jewish identity for Israel for the foreseeable future. My sense is that Republican support for a one-state, Greater Israel is unrealistic and hypocritical. The critical element is to create a Palestine, at peace with Israel, with borders that work out for both and to insure that it does not become an armed brigand state, just itching for a new war of liberation with Israel.

This effort takes real work, realistic compromise and not the bellicosity of neo-cons and Republican Evangelicals who are saving Israel for the “Rapture” or the “2nd Coming.”

You’re smart enough to know the only way Arabs agree to peace is “Right of Return.” And Ron Paul has nothing to do with Christian Evangelicals or the Republican Party. He’s a Libertarian running in the GOP and you’ll notice his anti Israel and foreign policy stands ended his chances for the nomination. One of the pro Israel candidates won.
A two state solution is useless for peace. It’s just part of the “salami” negotiating effort taking a slice at a time till the slices end, then going to war for the rest.

The goal is make Israel indefensible. A two state solution jus tmakes Israel more susceptible to rocket fire and terrorism.
If you’re a “Host of The Advocates,” it makes me wonder what you’re actually “advocating” for?

The Two-State solution is supported by the vast percentage of Israelis. The one-state solution will mean eventually a majority of non-Jews within Israel. When you can solve that problem, please tell me. Israel has a problem with an independent Palestine and safeguards must be in place. But none of you have any clue with regards to the millions of Arab-Muslims living in the West Bank and Gaza. No one is sending them to Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon or Syria. So dreaming about a Greater Israel with a “shrinking” Muslim population on the West Bank is self-delusional. I’ve been to Israel, my children are Day School graduates, we are supporters of Israel and our cousins are Sabras. The talk here is just election year claptrap, with little basis in reality. You folks are big on committing Israeli and American blood and treasure.

Obama has voted with Israel in the UN 100% of the time, the ONLY US President to do so. Obama has ordered the largest US Israeli Military joint excersizes in History, Giving Iran a birdseye view of what it will have to face if it doesn’t stand down. Obama has approved of more Foreign Aid to Israel for its security than any other president ever has. Only two presidents have ever visited Israel in their first term. In what way is his record not good?

I’m amused that (at present) 9 people have “disliked” the above comment,
but no one hazarded a reply to the question asked. Is it because, when
faced with the realities of Obama’s record, those who buy the wing-nut
conspiracy theories about the black, Israel-hating, New Deal-loving,
Muslim communist who has hi-jacked American democracy have no response
that includes facts?

When I’ve asked, in the past, what the anti-Obama
folks make of even Bibi recently changing his tune, commending the Obama
administration on recent efforts (military and diplomatic), they again
offer only silence. If the facts don’t support one’s stance, it’s
typically because it is a spurious one. Why are Dershowitz et al
stumping for Obama now; I dare say it’s because they know a lot more
about policy and “the facts” than any of us commenting here.

paul delanosays:

October 31, 2012 - 3:36 pm

I think you need to ask one of the 75% of Israeli jews who prefer Romney over Obama to answer your question. Really, you have to have been asleep the past 4 yrs to not know the answer. From his bowing and scraping tour of the arab world after his inaugaration which did not include Israel where he has still not visited, to his trying to force Israel to make a unilateral concession to the PA on all their demands, to his less than successful containment policy toward the Iranian nuclear weapons program…..just a few highlights to point you on the right path.

The “self-defined right-wingers” aren’t of interest because their position is expected. It is noteworthy, however, that 30% of self-defined left-wingers and 54% of centrists prefer Romney. Still, the overall preference for Romney among Israelis isn’t surprising. They’re concerned. above all, about their security, whereas American Jews must be concerned with Israeli security AND a panoply of specifically American issues. If an American Jewish voter only considers Israel’s needs, that person is shirking their American citizenship. If an American Jewish voter prioritizes Israeli needs, that’s problematic, too. We must strive to vote first as American Jews, second as Israel (our nation, in the traditional sense of the word, but which obviously includes mishpacha in Israel, Europe, Africa, South America, etc.).

As an American Jew, I think President Obama’s “bowing and scrapping” was simply good diplomacy. It didn’t work as intended, that’s for sure, but I’d rather that he tried than simply further burn bridges at the outset. With respect to trying to make Israel make a unilateral concession, that policy was the same as all prior administration’s (including President GW Bush); the reaction against it baffles me. And the “less than successful containment policy” vis a vis Iran? As I understand it, Iran is hemorrhaging (financially) at present, the regime is engaged in power struggles with the clerics, and Bibi has commended US policy in recent weeks. It seems like the policy is working.

paul delanosays:

October 31, 2012 - 6:06 pm

My 75% of Israeli Jews preferring Romney is correct.

‘A survey released on Sunday by Tel Aviv University showed Israeli Jews preferred Romney to Obama by almost a three to one margin – the inverse of the predicted American Jewish vote.’

paul delanosays:

October 31, 2012 - 3:41 pm

And by the way, the well-informed consensus on those who know both Obama and Netanyahu is that they detest each other. As for anything Bibi may have recently said on Obama let me remind you of an old truism ‘The Language of Diplomacy is the Language of Useful Fictions.’

yevkasays:

October 31, 2012 - 1:20 pm

I would urge of Obama to send a tougher message to Netanyahu to stop building illegal settlements and start suing for peace with a sober and serious mind. I expected Obama to be far more more firm with BIBi.

surfer_dadsays:

October 31, 2012 - 2:22 pm

“I would urge of Obama to send a tougher message to Hamas to stop shooting illegal rockets and start suing for peace with a sober and serious mind. I expected Obama to be far more more firm with Hamas.”

JRappsays:

October 31, 2012 - 1:36 pm

TL;DR: Prominent Jews endorse Obama because their Jewish identity is intimately tied up with their Party identity. When the Democratic President and an increasing number of Democrats are prima facie hostile to the Jewish state they can’t vote against the Democratic Party even if it’s hostile to Jews because to do so would oxymoronically strike at the heart of their Jewish identity. Israel is, of course, not the only issue important to Jews, but liberal social causes and “social justice” are not the only important Jewish issues either. If you believe that one half of the Jewish people are facing the imminent threat of Genocide, like Dershowitz and Koch believe, then securing their safety should trump all other Jewish issues – as well it should.

The President is a man who has been all too comfortable building personal relationships with people who don’t much like Jews, and this comfort also manifests in a foreign policy uniquely hostile to Israel for an American administration. The sad reality is that the left is becoming increasingly Anti-Semitic, singling the Jewish state out for scorn, mainstreaming canards about Jewish control, and even more recently a movement to ban Circumcision. The political right too has a history of Anti-Semetism, but whether you want to admit it, or not, Conservatives have done a much better job confronting Anti-Semitism in their midst and expunging it than the Left has. The response of prominent Jews has been to either ignore, or discount this trend because it’s not easy to admit that your ideological fellow travelers might bear an age’s old animus towards you simply because you’re Jewish.

You won’t be able to ignore it much longer.

Jacob Arnonsays:

November 3, 2012 - 5:30 pm

You mean to say that Bill Krystal’s Jewish identity isn’t tied up with his identity as a Republican neocon? Give me a break.

JRappsays:

November 3, 2012 - 6:15 pm

Kristol’s view of foreign policy is influenced by his Judaism, although that has nothing to do with the current discussion. If you could point to instances of Kristol supporting a Republican President despite that President‘s hostility towards Israel then you’d have a more relevant point. Perhaps his stint in the Bush Senior Administration, although it’s more likely he would have acted as a counterweight those like Baker. Your analogy simply does not work because there’s no indication that Kristol would support a GOP President as hostile to the Jewish state as Obama is because there’s never been a GOP President as remotely hostile to Israel as Obama has been.

Sure…Obama is so hostile that Israel is getting more funding and military aid than ever – even Ehud Barak says this.
Obama doesn’t like Netanyahu because of BiBi’s pushy & meddling tactics – but that’s not unusual, most world leaders can’t stand Bibi.
But Obama is as pro-israel as any US politician and has always been close with many jewish intellectuals.
The mistake is confusing Obama’s dislike of Bibi for a dislike of Israel itself – that’s just not true.
There is now this ban on any criticism of Israeli governmental policies as being anti-semitism and that’s a bad error in judgement.
Israel may be the “Holy Land” but the Israeli government and israeli leaders are just human beings – who make mistakes.
This “Holier than Thou” attitude does not help Israel’s image or status or ability to make peace.

Tzursays:

November 23, 2012 - 12:00 am

One of the things that really sends a clear message on Obama’s views is the way he has publicly humiliated Israel, again and again. Excuses that he REALLY doesn’t mean it somehow fail to persuade. Such humiliations have been handed out to no other state that is an ally of the U.S., even though Obama does tend to treat his firm allies much worse than such enemies or pseudo-allies as Russia, China or Saudi Arabia. Remember, for example, the openly nasty and personal comments against Israel as such, and its policies, assigned by Obama in late 2011-early 2012 to be uttered by a whole gallery of mouthpieces, one after another, week after week, such as the retiring Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (he frankly accused Israel and Netanyahu of ingratitude, not toeing the American line regardless of its own security interests as a grateful supplicant should), the new Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (who actually pounded the table while blaming Israel for the collapse of peace talks actually caused by Palestinian disinterest in peace talks at all, and Obama’s own ill-advised policies), the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, even former President Bill Clinton, and as well the conveniently Jewish Howard Gutman, US Ambassador to (the quite antisemitic) Belgium (who memorably blamed Israel for European and Muslim antisemitism)? If Gutman’s views were really contrary to the official line he would never have been allowed to state them, or would have been transferred or dismissed from his post. We need not even mention the public embarrassments that Obama coarsely meted out to Netanyahu, or his “off-microphone” slurs caught by journalists. And of course, underpinning all this, as J. Rapp pointed out above in his well-put comment, the shameful dissent at the Democratic Party Presidential Convention regarding the Party Platform clauses on Israel, the Palestinians, and even God, speaks volumes about the sort of party that has chosen Obama.

At the same time, Obama’s support for Israel’s military defense indicates that he is not anti-Israel per se. That is very important. So it is likely that Obama thinks in all sincerity that he knows better than the Israel electorate, and their democratically chosen Prime Minister, what is best for Israel in its existential conflict with the Muslim world. This arrogant dismissal of a fellow democracy’s policies is in character for Obama. Just this assumption, however, is ineffably condescending and insulting.

Sorry. The whole notion that Dems and Obama are hostile to Israel is simply false, it seems to me. I see little but lots of fear driving this notion, and fear-based decisions rarely are good ones. The facts on the ground re. Dems/Obama and Israel prove otherwise, unless one believes that only toughness, only shunning all other middle eastern countries, only war is good for Israel and the US. I beg to differ. Reagan was chummy with Gorbachev at the time, even while taking tough stands. Was he anti-US as a result? Of course not. Neither is Obama anti-Us or anti-Israel.

JRappsays:

November 4, 2012 - 6:36 pm

The Obama Administration refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, made apartment building in a neighborhood of Jerusalem that will be a part of Israel in any workable deal an issue, and most worrisome stated a position that the June ‘67 lines should serve as the basis for a deal when every other Administration has held the position that the lines should be negotiated. Furthermore, President Obama personally slighted the Israeli prime minister, even going so far as to insult him to the French PM. Obama visited Cairo, yet has never visited Israel during his Presidency, which ends a clear message to the Islamic world and Israel that he does not support Israel.

The President has continually pressured Israel, without similarly pressuring the Palestinians, despite their refusal to even sit at the negotiating table (which explains why the Palestinians refuse to negotiate). President Obama referred to Israel’s concerns over the existential threat of an Iranian nuke as “noise.” After the US, according to US law, cut off UNESCO funding after its Palestinian membership vote, the Obama administration has worked to reinstate the funding, despite the membership vote circumventing the negotiation peace process. When the US sponsored the Global Counterterrorism Forum, the Obama Administration excluded Israel, despite Israel’s history of being the target of terrorism, but Islamic government s included.

In June 2012, the Democratic Party Platform was changed to exclude reference to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and when there was a floor vote to reinstate Jerusalem, a majority of Democratic delegates booed Jerusalem’s reinstatement. The Democratic Party’s 2008 Platform rejected the so-called “Right of Return,” which is little more than the Palestinian aspiration to destroy Israel through demography. The Democratic Party’s 2012 Platform removed this language, effectively promoting the Palestinian rejectionist fantasy that any workable peace deal could include that Israel and its 6 million Jews could ever agree millions of Arab settling in Israel with the result that Israel would cease being the world’s sole Jewish state. Additionally, the 2008 platform explicitly called for isolating Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist and honors past agreements, but the 2012 Democratic platform removed this language, implying that the Democratic party is perfectly fine with a Hamas that wants to annihilate Israel and slaughter Jewish civilians.

The Democratic and Obama are both demonstrably hostile to Israel and its willful blindness to believe otherwise.

salemstsays:

October 31, 2012 - 1:38 pm

Excellent piece by Smith.
These guys clearly care more about liberalism and themselves than they do Israel.
Willingly duped by likely an anti Israeli Muslim president.
And campaigning for Obama? I lost respect for them all.

paul delanosays:

October 31, 2012 - 1:57 pm

Why? Because you can take the Jew out of the ghetto but it is very hard, if not impossible, to take the ghetto out of those Jews who habitually and reflexively, vote Democratic party every time around.

Interesting that a thoughtful vote for Dems is seen a knee-jerk. Calling others who hold views that differ from yours robotic, as if stupidly and without any thought just repeating a habit, does little to help the discourse. Your argument would be stronger with facts rather than attacks.

Personally, my vote for Obama and Dems has nothing to do with habit or reflexes. It has everything to do with social and economic policies and policy toward Israel and other foreign nations. I find Romney’s ideas a constant moving target and not to be trusted,l and I find that conservative thinking and policies over the last 30 years – promoted mainly by Reps with the help of some Blue Dog Dems – have done great damage to our country and our people. I also disagree completely that Obama is weak on or bad for Israel.

So, I vote for Obama and Dems because I find their policies far more in line with what seems to me to be best for both the US and Israel. And I’ve become less and less willing to vote for individual Reps, as I once was, because of how polarized we, the people, and our politics have become.

Defending Israel and calling it as Democratic as America is a big laugh. Anyone who defends Israel is defending a country that promotes terrorism, apartheid, murder, racism, and more negatives than I can mention here. Maybe it is like America.

But besides being Anti-Christian in the eyes of Almighty God I wouldn’t be putting any money into any great future for the country. Israel is America downfall and destruction. Anything coming out of Israel should have a warning label.

(By the way, as my finger hovers over the “post” button, I find myself hesitating. The level of hateful speech allowed on these sites is more than a little disturbing. It is the verbal equivalent of monkeys throwing feces at each other. Jews are commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself” and to remember that each person is created b’tzelem Elokim.” If you keep kosher and are shomer Shabbat but disrespect others through hateful speech, what kind of a Jew are you? With that in mind, I have tried to address the issues without name-calling and would hope any responses would do the same.)

Well said, Pesele, both the first paragraph and the length parenthetical. I’m troubled by the language (and the black-and-white thinking) that so often appears in Tablet comment threads. No one side is exclusively guilty of it — the Left and the Right resort to name-calling and mud-clinging — but Klal Yisrael seems to have been “thrown under the bus,” a figure of speech much beloved in Jewish conversation of late.

Aren’t you a slanderous jerk. What makes your slander anything that a sane person would reject. Dershowitz is as much of a Jew as you are and his work for Jewish causes makes your stupid and insulting remarks more meaningless. How low can you sink?

I_Go_Pogosays:

October 31, 2012 - 7:53 pm

I’m a goyem, and I don’t hold Dershowitz against you.We all have people in our lives we’re ashamed of. (The WORST sight I ever have seen was Dershowitz naked on Lucy Vincent Beach, Martha’s Vineyard) Oh. the horror!

I_Go_Pogosays:

October 31, 2012 - 7:53 pm

I’m a goyem, and I don’t hold Dershowitz against you.We all have people in our lives we’re ashamed of. (The WORST sight I ever have seen was Dershowitz naked on Lucy Vincent Beach, Martha’s Vineyard) Oh. the horror!

I_Go_Pogosays:

October 31, 2012 - 7:53 pm

I’m a goyem, and I don’t hold Dershowitz against you.We all have people in our lives we’re ashamed of. (The WORST sight I ever have seen was Dershowitz naked on Lucy Vincent Beach, Martha’s Vineyard) Oh. the horror!

Alan Dershowitz is ALL that is rotten in Judaism! He is a parasite! He is a douche-bag! He is what makes Goyim hate Jews!

Obama is EVERYTHING that Dershowitz is! What a combination.

Beatrix17says:

October 31, 2012 - 3:04 pm

Clinton, a moderate Democrat, supported Israel, negotiating a peace agreement between Israel and Jordan. His inability to bring peace between Israel and
Palestine, he blamed squarely on Arafat.

This anti-Israel narrative of the Democrats came about when they installed the very
liberal Obama as President. And Dershowitz, Saban, and Koch gave up
their power after they criticized Obama on Israel, but now plan to
vote for him anyway. Why should Obama or the party pay any attention
to them? Or to the Jews, 75% of whom plan to vote for Obama no
matter what he does.

It’s not a case of Jews caring about more than Israel. The rest of the party already agrees on abortion, gay rights, etc. Israel is the only issue where Jews
might influence the party. Democrats don’t pay attention to Jews,
because they know they have the Jewish vote. Republicans on the
other hand take us seriously because they’ve had more difficulty
winning us over.

There is slight historical evidence of Republicans being concerned with Israel no less Jews. You should read some of the Nixon transcripts regarding Jews and interestingly enough FDR had more high level Jewish appointments then the previous 31 presidents and all that followed him up until Clinton. Clinton, by the way broke that record. As to support from Jews, just look at the Democratic Congresses over the years. Aside from the Southern Dixiecrats, almost all the issues Jews hold near and dear, here and abroad, came from Democrats, of which many were Jewish. But most Jews are loyal to issues and values and Democrats reflect those issues and deserve Jewish loyalty. Are there liberals and leftists that are critical of Israel? Yes there are! Why would the average American really care about Israel or Jews in general? Maybe there are people here who resent multi-billions in foreign aid? Is that unnatural? The Christian Right and their Tea Party fellow travelers have no interest in a Jewish Israel. They are modern day Crusaders who are virulently anti-Muslim and want to see Israel do their fighting. I’d always bet against the oil patch, and the Republican right!

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 4:57 am

Anybody replacing anti- Semite Obama will be an improvement for the USA and particularly for Israel. Iran first of all will be stopped from acquiring a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel. Obama wanting to talk to Iran and talk giving them time to finish building their bomb is not different than Roosevelt closing the doors to Jews escaping the Shoa. 6,000,000 Jews again face extermination by another mad man and US Jews will vote again for another anti- Semite seating on his hands giving Iran more time to build their extermination tool to destroy Israel and control the whole Middle east.

Beatrix17says:

November 1, 2012 - 4:03 pm

I appreciate your
feelings for your fellow Jews, but Republicans are interested in Jews
and Israel right now. So many of the people and incidents you
mention belong to the past.

As George Santayana said. those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The GOP, Mitt Romney and his fiction writers will say anything and pander to anyone for votes – wake up!

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 8:30 pm

To this kind of statement I once wrote something you can quote beside Santayana of whom you probably know next to nothing. Here it goes: “Those who can’t think quote instead.“ Fits you so well.

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 8:33 pm

6,000,000 Jews died in the Shoa including most of my family and my parents. I was not 7 yet. Today again 6,000,000 Jews in Israel are targeted for extermination by nuclear bombs being build in Iran. Just like in Roosevelt time Obama wants to talk and talk some more to Iran while they are busy building their nuclear bomb they are aiming at Israel.

It is interesting that whatever set of evidence or information exists, it makes Obama supporters support him more and Romney supporters support him more. I prefer Romney because I feel bad for the unemployed and I believe that unemployment will stay over 7% if the President is re-elected.

There is slight historical evidence of Republicans being concerned with Israel no less Jews. You should read some of the Nixon transcripts regarding Jews and interestingly enough FDR had more high level Jewish appointments then the previous 31 presidents and all that followed him up until Clinton. Clinton, by the way broke that record. As to support from Jews, just look at the Democratic Congresses over the years. Aside from the Southern Dixiecrats, almost all the issues Jews hold near and dear, here and abroad, came from Democrats, of which many were Jewish. But most Jews are loyal to issues and values and Democrats reflect those issues and deserve Jewish loyalty. Are there liberals and leftists that are critical of Israel? Yes there are! Why would the average American really care about Israel or Jews in general? Maybe there are people here who resent multi-billions in foreign aid? Is that unnatural? The Christian Right and their Tea Party fellow travelers have no interest in a Jewish Israel. They are modern day Crusaders who are virulently anti-Muslim and want to see Israel do their fighting. I’d always bet against the oil patch, and the Republican right!

wildjewsays:

October 31, 2012 - 3:25 pm

There is much to commend those who say American Jews continue to support Barack Obama because they are liberals before they are Jews. In other words liberalism is Alan Dershowitz’s and Ed Koch’s religion; not Judaism.

Barack Obama’s positions are more closely aligned with the belief of (most) Jews in tikkun olam. In that way, he is a better Jew than people like Sheldon Adelson.

wildjewsays:

November 4, 2012 - 1:46 pm

You must define what you mean by tikkun olam. Today, far-leftists and radicals use this ideal of repairing the world (who repairs the world, God or man?) to sanction all kinds of Marxist social engineering the kind of which Obama advocates; the kind of which never entered the minds of our prophets. So please define your terms. Otherwise you have zero credibility. Sheldon Adelson is a land of Israel Zionist. Barack Obama is an anti-Semitic reprobate.

paul delanosays:

October 31, 2012 - 3:57 pm

Which segment of the American Jewish community will vote Romney? The orthodox, the large Russian emigre community who understand better than most the direction Obama is taking the country and those Jews who have retained a strong attachment to both their religion,culture and the nation of Israel. Who is going for Obama? That large segment whose real ‘religion’ is the Secular Torah promoting abortion, Homosexual marriage and all the issues important to the homosexual lobby and every other issue important to the Liberal Left. You may also know them under their affiliation umbrella also known as Reform Judaism AKA Judaism Lite. Many are in or are the products of inter-faith marriage. Their attachment to Israel is non-existent or negligible. Statistics show that 90% of the children of these marriages do not identify as Jews as young adults. So it is clear that by mid-century and later these people will have been assimilated into the greater non-Jewish American community. As such, those Jews who remain as self-identifying Jews will most certainly not share the political ideals of the current 70-75% who consistently vote the democratic party line.

Beatrix17says:

October 31, 2012 - 3:58 pm

Dershowitz 73, Koch 87, Foxman 72, Saban 68.

Where are all the young Jewish hotshots ready to take over and lead the charge on Israel and other Jewish concerns? Obama ignores Derhowitz, et al, and they
dutifully roll over. The NY Times won’t allow Foxman a pro-Israel OP
Ed, and he passively pens a letter to the editor that no one reads.

We’re as bad as the Palestinians. Abbas 77 still runs the show with all the old tiresome
tirades of the “right of return, settlements, etc” but he has no
one to hand the reins over to. Obama brought youth and ego, but no
leadership abilities. Romney will be a good leader, but he’s hardly
young. He chose Ryan because the Republicans are a party with a
future. The Democrats have permanently settled into the 1960s.

But where’s the up and coming youthful Jewish leadership who will actually have an influence on the future of America, Israel and the Jews because without Israel
nobody cares what the Jews think.

Eric Cantor and Josh Mendel are breath of fresh air of young Jewish Leadership.

Beatrix17says:

October 31, 2012 - 9:22 pm

I agree about Eric Cantor. He seems most focused on his career right now, but he’s the top Jewish pol in the country. I’ll have to look Josh up. Thanks for the info. I belong to the older generation and admire them all, but I want to see bright youngsters who aren’t in thrall to Obama and J Street.

jmm64says:

October 31, 2012 - 3:59 pm

After the election, a lot of Democrat Jews will be surprised to find out that Romney received, at least, 40% of the total Jewish vote. In Florida alone, Romney is a head from 3-5 points and Romney could not have such a lead without having a significant number of Jews living in Florida supporting him. Given Obama’s record for the past 4 years, it’s an easy decision to vote for Romney on Nov. 6.

P.S. Dershowitz would vote for Jimmy Carter again as the Democrat Candidate over Moses as the Republican Candidate.

Funny how the Jewish people are regarded as quite smart, well educated, and very sophisticated, but folks like yourself seem to believe that the Jewish support for Democrats, (aside from Carter and Kerry, )which has ranged from 75-95%, reflects a general stupidity. Who says you are so smart?

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 4:47 am

Not so smart. But without a Jewish heart toward fellow Jews, just like yourself, a perfect example of a US Jew that isn’t.

Beatrix17says:

November 1, 2012 - 3:25 pm

I don’t think that an
occasional Einstein means that all Jews are bright. But Jews tend to
be traditional, and having the courage to break free from a tradition
that is no longer serving our needs shows intelligence.

Funny how the Jewish people are regarded as quite smart, well educated, and very sophisticated, but folks like yourself seem to believe that the Jewish support for Democrats, (aside from Carter and Kerry, )which has ranged from 75-95%, reflects a general stupidity. Who says you are so smart?

Poupicsays:

November 1, 2012 - 4:45 am

Because we knew, we all knew Obama was an anti- Semite already before his election 2008. He associated with Jew haters: Wright, Farrakhan,Khalidi and many others.

leucippesays:

November 4, 2012 - 12:20 pm

Poupic: I hate to say this (and does your name mean ‘pupik’) but I think your ignorant vitriol is about exhausted. So please stop posting these nasty, ill informed, and embarrassing (to you) outbursts. We would all appreciate it.

Poupicsays:

November 4, 2012 - 12:27 pm

Off course your kind would like to shut me up. The truth will set anti- Semite Obama free. In 2 days I will vote to replace anti- Semite Obama who beside that screwed up US foreign policies so much that The US has less allies in the Middle east and more hate openly toward the USA and of course as usual Israel the best ally the US ever had anywhere. Oh how much I wish it was already Tuesday so I can vote anti- Semite Obama out!

Beatrix17says:

November 6, 2012 - 4:57 pm

You have 135 plus votes and Poupic has over 8,000. And you’re telling him to stop posting? No one ever heard of you, But many of us would miss Poupic.

altershmaltersays:

October 31, 2012 - 7:47 pm

RE: P. S. Ya think? Moses remained “in office” for 40 years while his constituency complained about him almost daily. In his day, if they really wanted him out, they would have stoned him; Jimmy…we just voted him out.

And good that he would vote fort Carter, and man who managed to help broker peace. The notion that toughness is the only approach is deeply flawed and has been proven so time and again. What works is a balance of toughness and outreach to negotiate. Reagan and Begin were good examples of this, pragmatists who understood that they can make peace even when talking tough.”

As for 40% of Jews? My guess is you will be deeply disappointed, but predictions are a waste of time. it will be what it will be. Romney is an easy vote if what you want is someone who changes his positions with the winds in order to garner votes. Clearly, it’s a strategy that works, sadly enough.

If Jews, by and large, are supporting those who couldn’t give a crap about Israel’s security, instead prioritizing their pet little issues over it, then why the hell should Republicans continue to expend effort and political capital on a people who don’t appreciate them, by massive margins?

To heck with it.

Samwise Gamgee the 3rdsays:

October 31, 2012 - 7:51 pm

If Jews, by and large, are supporting those who couldn’t give a crap about Israel’s security, instead prioritizing their pet little issues over it, then why the hell should Republicans continue to expend effort and political capital on a people who don’t appreciate them, by massive margins?

To heck with it.

Samwise Gamgee the 3rdsays:

October 31, 2012 - 7:51 pm

If Jews, by and large, are supporting those who couldn’t give a crap about Israel’s security, instead prioritizing their pet little issues over it, then why the hell should Republicans continue to expend effort and political capital on a people who don’t appreciate them, by massive margins?

To heck with it.

latenight20009says:

October 31, 2012 - 8:02 pm

Gracious of our right-wing chaver to explain it all to us…. ignoring the possibility that Obama’s policies, poorly implemented as they have sometimes been, are truly in Israel’s interest, and that the Republican stance is without either nuance or good sense.
How could they boo at the DNC — well, because it was a sloppy and unfortunately unnecessary bit of manipulation of the body and the chair was abusing his authority?

Sharonasays:

October 31, 2012 - 8:08 pm

This is the same guy that helped get OJ off, and slept just fine, after doing so. I don’t think he ever stated whether or not he truly believed if OJ was innocent, but if he thought he was, he’s a moron, so why would anyone value his opinion? His opinion is his, and not worth bothering with.

Koch and Dershowitz are doing what all liberals do. Choosing their ideology over their own people.

Hobbessays:

October 31, 2012 - 8:37 pm

Could it be, that they wish everyone to endure the horrors of Nazi Germany? For supposedly smart guys don’t they realize Obama is a Muslim and hates Jews. He’ll get their votes and endorsements and then throw them to the slaughter just as Hitler did. This time it will be the Islamists.

Tough on Iran falls under the same lie as “I didn’t have sex with that woman”.

Mike Leesays:

October 31, 2012 - 8:41 pm

“Could it be, that they wish everyone to endure the horrors of Nazi Germany?”. What a vile thing to say. Shame on you. And stop with the “they”. Jews do not all think the same way. You aren’t that stupid are you? Are you?

Hobbessays:

October 31, 2012 - 8:58 pm

Don’t get your panties in an uproar … “they”, to which I referred, meant Dershowitz, Koch, and Saban, who were those which the article was addressing… Geez!

teapartydocsays:

October 31, 2012 - 8:39 pm

They are socialists, and Obama is a socialist. Socialists tend to be well-read idiots.

Saint_Etiennesays:

November 2, 2012 - 7:01 pm

So well-read is a pejorative term now?

Beatrix17says:

November 6, 2012 - 5:06 pm

No. Idiot is.

Mike Leesays:

October 31, 2012 - 8:40 pm

American Jews do not vote for Israel. They vote for social policy over Israel policy. They are not Israelis. They are left-wing Americans (except for orthodox/conservative Jews).

You can reason this out all you want, but in the end there is no excuse for this intellectually bankrupt betrayal of Israel. These three guys, and many other Jews like them, and anyone who has watched obama’s unfolding antipathy toward Israel over the past four years, have no excuse if they endorse obama. At the very least, if they are not one-issue voters they should just clam up and not endorse anyone. But no, they cast their lot with the most anti-Israel president since Carter.

They have no excuse, and neither does anyone who follows their example.

jerseychrissays:

October 31, 2012 - 8:56 pm

They all belong to the same club: Reformed Jews Who Don’t Give A Shit About Real Jews.

Mr_A56says:

October 31, 2012 - 8:59 pm

For many, liberalism has become their dominant new religion. Prominent Jews are endorsing Obama because in the end their liberalism has become a stronger, more important new religion to them than their Judaism. Sad but apparently true.

Michael Babbittsays:

October 31, 2012 - 10:04 pm

Why do so many Jews seem to vote against their own religious interests? Because their true religion is not Judaism but Liberalism; if anything Liberal conflicts with Judaism, they chuck the Judaism. Not difficult to understand. Many Jews have somehow convinced themselves that Liberalism/Progressivism/Statism is the true outward expression of Judaism. Of course they have their priorities backwards, as so many Progressive values are anti-Jewish: abortion, statism, gun control (removing the ability to defend yourself and family), anti-capital punishment, and that great oxymoron, gay marriage. But then again, it’s only God’s words they are against. As long as they think they know what God’s true intentions are, they ignore His Word. And then of course are the many non-religious Jews who couldn’t carte less about God since they don’t believe in Him anyway; they have become cultural monists; then they go with their feelings, the defining characteristic of Liberalism/Progressivism.

Foxdogssays:

October 31, 2012 - 10:09 pm

Perhaps the good professor didn’t notice how quickly Obama turned on the Catholics once he no longer needed them to support his Obamacare plans.

Robert Starkandsays:

October 31, 2012 - 11:41 pm

Are you kidding? Playing both sides of the aisle? Since when did American Jews back the Republican party? In fact, supporting the Democrats at this time weakens the American Jewish position. The Democrats don’t have to worry about the Jewish vote. So Obama pressures Israel not to build in Jerusalem. Obama wants to negotiate from the 1967 borders. Obama exposes Israeli plans for a base in Azerbaijan. Obama invites the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his Cairo speech, when Sadat and Mubarak isolated them from Egyptian political life. Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East emphasizing Muslim identification over national identification and aiding and abetting civilization jihad in our country. And American Jews still give him 70% of the vote. Ed Koch says he can influence Obama to change his position? How?

Robert Starkandsays:

October 31, 2012 - 11:41 pm

Are you kidding? Playing both sides of the aisle? Since when did American Jews back the Republican party? In fact, supporting the Democrats at this time weakens the American Jewish position. The Democrats don’t have to worry about the Jewish vote. So Obama pressures Israel not to build in Jerusalem. Obama wants to negotiate from the 1967 borders. Obama exposes Israeli plans for a base in Azerbaijan. Obama invites the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his Cairo speech, when Sadat and Mubarak isolated them from Egyptian political life. Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East emphasizing Muslim identification over national identification and aiding and abetting civilization jihad in our country. And American Jews still give him 70% of the vote. Ed Koch says he can influence Obama to change his position? How?

donzi_boysays:

November 1, 2012 - 7:14 am

The Jews of Turka, Poland accepted their fate when the Germans came to slaughter them. Only 26 of 3000 survived because they fled. As a child of two of the survivors I know this. Acceptance of Obama by America’s Jews is more of the same. “He’s really not that bad. Is a Mormon going to be better?” When dogmatic thinking pervades a society it may be doomed.

donzi_boysays:

November 1, 2012 - 7:14 am

The Jews of Turka, Poland accepted their fate when the Germans came to slaughter them. Only 26 of 3000 survived because they fled. As a child of two of the survivors I know this. Acceptance of Obama by America’s Jews is more of the same. “He’s really not that bad. Is a Mormon going to be better?” When dogmatic thinking pervades a society it may be doomed.

richard40says:

November 1, 2012 - 10:56 am

I dont buy the lame rationalization that they are staying so Jews have some influence in both camps. When the majority of Jews vote dem, they will have influence, except for one thing. By not bolting on a dem, Obama, who clearly has contempt for them, these Jews are in danger of becomming like US blacks, the cheap date who will always come back when you need them, no matter how much you abuse them. Why do both parties court hispanics so much, because they are a true swing vote that can switch if abused too much. Why do both parties, particularly dems, ignore blacks, because they already know how they will vote, and nothing either side does will affect it. The way for these Jews to have REAL influence, is to bolt Obama, give the dems a real loss due to the defection of a once secure voting block, and force future dems to worry about, and court that voter block again, while repubs actively try to keep their newfound voters.

thinkinginvirginiasays:

November 1, 2012 - 12:16 pm

Has anyone read the “Israel Test” by George Gilder? He makes a point that anti-semitism is essentially a hatred of capitalism and excellence in others who succeed. What bothers me is that so much of the “taxing the rich” arguments I hear coming from today’s Democrats is eerily similar.

lauragoldmansays:

November 1, 2012 - 1:38 pm

This article is totally inaccurate. I interviewed Alan Dershowitz in the spring. He said then he was voting for Obama.

This election is first about the economy. Comparing the actual accomplishments of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, distinct from the cherry-picked barbs of political ads, I can’t see why anyone, Jew or non-, would conclude Mr. Obama deserves reelection over Mr. Romney.

Here’s why: Mr. Romney founded an enormously successful business, Bain Capital.
I wanted to learn about it after I read a vitriolic screech by David Stockman. The Wikipedia article about Bain Capital was revealing and should be read: an astonishing number and scope of businesses were invested in, with great success for the pension funds and other investors in several investment pools. It shows Mr. Romney’s character: Perseverance after a slow start, and ability to adapt to thrive. Bain invested
in startups (Staples for a familiar example) and in the turnaround of failing
businesses (Brookstone, Stage Stores). Other recognizable Bain Capital investments
include Sealy, Domino’s Pizza, Burger King, Sports Authority, The Weather
Channel, and on and on…and on. Some went bust (turnarounds are not always successful) but many companies Bain helped continue to contribute to the private-sector economy. The Bain Capital model included “partner[ing] with existing management [of acquired companies] to apply Bain [Consulting] methodology to their operations”, and had a good rate of success — and some failures, normal in a competitive environment. Later Mr. Romney did a successful turnaround of the 2002 Winter Olympics and was a decent governor of Massachusetts. This is a huge breadth
and depth of experience dealing with government and diverse businesses and
industries at every stage of life, and choosing and motivating competent executives,
an exemplary resume by any objective standard that eminently qualifies him to be POTUS.

Mr. Obama’s accomplishments before POTUS comprise a comparative shadow. Zero business experience in this market-driven economy. Never a budget, never a marketplace, never a profit, never a payroll to meet. A “community organizer” and a university lecturer prior to becoming a professional politician, thereafter his sole career. His record in the Illinois senate and his partial term in the US Senate were ho-hum.

As POTUS, with filibuster-proof control of both Houses of Congress in 2009-10 he squandered this advantage to force through the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank without the Republicans (“F*** ‘em”, according to that eminent Talmudist Rav Rahm) , instead of focusing on turning around the damaged economy — a judgment failure (the auto bailout had been started by Mr. Bush, not Mr. Obama). He pushed through a $0.8T “stimulus” for “shovel-ready” programs. All but the most naïve, credulous, and inexperienced knew that there was no such thing as big shovel-ready projects needing funding: If shovel-ready they were already funded; if not funded they were not shovel-ready – lacking procurement, engineering, permits, equipment purchases, etc. – long processes.

The defects in Dodd-Frank and ACA have used up much ink. ACA’s arguably good
parts take just five or ten of its 1000 pages. Dodd-Frank is in part impossible to implement fully, etc .

The choice should be on the actual record of accomplishment of the candidates, since history should be the best predictor of future performance-in-office. Israel will survive either one. Abortions will still be readily available without Roe v Wade. But the US fisc needs fixing, and Mr. Obama cannot fix it.

Is it possible that a large number of Jewish-Americans view the policy differences between Israel and the United States to be minor, and most of the clashes between Netanyahu and Obama to be more about personality than policy? Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres (and even, at times, Netanyahu) have lavished praise on Obama’s policies.

I’d even add that a number of critics within Israel have noted that Netanyahu had bad relations with the Clinton Administration as well.

The Republicans have a very poor record when it comes to Jewish issues in general and Israel in particular. (Remember Eisenhower, Bush the elder (the son was pro-Israel but helped Hamas come to power in Gaza either out of ignorance or accidentally, it doesn’t much matter).

Romney is a liar and if he lied about fiscal matters why should we trust him when it comes to political matters?

The Republican party is host to many “libertarians and isolationists) like Paul Rand and his son. Isolationism has never been good for Jews.

Because of these reasons ;and some others the Democrats are the better choice.

jaykayDXsays:

November 4, 2012 - 12:55 am

Alan Dershowitz, Haim Saban and Ed Koch all should be tried for treason for putting Israel’s interests before the USA – why are these parasites even being taken seriously at all? Oh becasue they have money and they can buy influence what a joke the US is becoming!!!

jaykayDXsays:

November 4, 2012 - 12:58 am

The reason so many US jews vote Democrat is because they see themselves as Americans first, and NOT Israelis! All these idiots tossing out the ‘anti-semite’ card seem to be under the impression that Americans Jews should be more loyal to Israel – a parasite state which gets billions i aid yet still acts like an ungrateful pipsqueak, instead of the land whee the live and work!!!

leucippesays:

November 4, 2012 - 12:07 pm

It’s because they are smart (Jews) and can sniff out an imposter like Romney, who stands for nothing except to win and whose long list of outright lies are enough to dismay any thinking individual. There’s certainly no reason to think that Romney would do anything constructive in the way of Israeli-Palestinian piece and his sabre rattling on Iran is all bluff and bravado. All he can do his tout his creds as a ‘business man,’ whose disdain for 47% of the population he calls ‘losers’ hardly bodes well for the US, the economy,and for Israel (he counts the Palestianians apparently as ‘losers’ as well). Now tell this to the ex-pats in Israel who are voting for Romney.

leucippesays:

November 4, 2012 - 12:11 pm

When in doubt and when there’s no coherent argument, just cry ‘anti-Semite.’ Really, haven’t those of you, who automatically cry ‘wolf’ all the time, outgrown these paranoid fantasies? I’m disappointed that folks like you have stopped thinking, listening, and reading.

“There’s a place for voters for whom strong support of Israel is the key issue—and that’s the Republican Party.” Of course Mr. Smith would say that; he writes for the Weekly Standard, which is for all intents and purposes an arm of the Republican Party. But, he is incorrect; the Republican Party is only for those in the Jewish community for whom Israel is the ONLY issue, and care about nothing else (woman’s right to choose, the future shape of the Supreme Court, dilution of voting rights, fair tax policy, the proper role of government, etc.). For them, I have only one message: make aliyah already. You no longer give a damn about America.

mgbmdmphsays:

November 4, 2012 - 1:19 pm

Alan Dershowitz was, is and remains a mensch who is both a Jewish American AND an American Jew.

Apparently some of our coreligionists find it unpalatable that President Obama is running for re-election to the Presidency of the United States rather than to become Prime Minister of Israel and CANNOT place Israel’s perceived goals above America’s perceived goals without violating his Oath of Office and his Constitutional mandates.

Governor Romney’s values and political behaviors are a total cipher because he is constitutionally incapable of thinking, saying and doing anything at the ‘same frequency’.

That’s my courteous way of saying that Mitt Romney has a life-long history of thinking one thing, saying a second thing, doing a third thing, lying about what he said and reversing whatever he has done as long as he perceives that it serves HIS personal best interests.

Is it not telling that the citizens of the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts were ready to can Romney after his term as governor AND will undoubtedly vote for President Obama’s re-election with a huge majority?

Apparently some of our coreligionists believe that Governor Romney might attempt to place Israel’s perceived goals above America’s perceived goals without violating his Oath of Office and his Constitutional mandates, to which I say ‘Define treason’ and ‘how would Congress respond to that kind of Presidential behavior?’ and ‘I know this nice bridge in Brooklyn …’.

Governor Romney is certainly callow enough to entertain that notion especially if he ‘decides’ to cater to the backers of the Republican Party Platform, especially the evangelists who ‘Love The Jewish People and Israel’ because we are the agency through which to usher in the coming of THEIR Messiah (LOL).

‘Decides’ may not even quite fit Mitt Romney’s dilemma. He is beholden, lock, stock and barrel.

Anyone fool enough to postulate that Romney would govern like a ‘Centrist With Halachic Jewish Values’ in terms of domestic policy and like a ‘Neocon With American Exceptionalism At Heart Including Serving Israel’s Perceived Agenda To Advance America’s Foreign Policy Goals’ is simply too dense to have a Yiddisher Kop.

I find plenty to criticize in President Obama’s first four-year tenure, but I do have the capacity to discriminate between Chicken Salad and Chicken Sh-t.

I find the assumptions of this article to be inaccurate from the start. It assumes that opposing settlements is bad for Israel, that the absence of something the Dem. platform that espouses a united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is bad for Israel, that pushing Israel and its enemies to come to the table to negotiate is bad for Israel, that the only way to support Israel is through tough talk and action toward Israel’s enemies and a love fest for alI Israeli policies visa vi the Arab countries and Palestinians. And, of course, the assumption that only the Republican party is the place for those of us Jews who support Israel. All seems false to me.

Further, it is always interesting, though I’d say somewhat of a waste of time, to try to guess what is in another’s mind, as if anyone can possibly know. This article looks like a real stretch to contort facts to meet the writer’s basic assumptions.

It seems far more simple to me. Obama is, indeed, a strong supporter of Israel, no less so than Bush or any other American president. Folks like Aaron David Miller, who have served multiple presidents, recognize this and have said so publicly. Both parties see clearly the connection to Israel and our interests, and there is no shift in the Dem party. At the same time, the path toward more settlements and eventual annexation of large swaths of the territories is highly dangerous to Israel’s future. Good for Obama for saying so publicly, and large numbers of Israelis agree with him.

As for Iran, the article’s perspective seems based on the American foreign policy notion that only toughness wins. This concept is based largely on the belief that John Kennedy stopped the Cuban missile crisis by being tough and sending American warships to the area. Recently, the truth came out, a truth Kennedy wanted kept secret at the time. Kennedy and Kruschev negotiated and settled, with the USSR removing missiles from Cuba, and we removing them from Turkey. Kennedy did this despite all of his military and national security advisers telling him to stand tough, even to the point of launching a missile, and a grave catastrophe was averted. Kennedy’s advises argued that giving up anything would be seen as weakness,. Kennedy saw it differently. He says in the tapes of this secret session that he was thinking of the innocent adults and children that would die because of a failure to give up something – relatively unimportant missiles in Turkey – and strike a deal. He struck a deal, and he was right.

So, I suggest that this entire notion that only toughness wins finally be put to rest. If Israel truly wants peace, it must negotiate with its enemies, even those who still desire to push her into the sea. It is enemies who negotiate for peace, not friends. Many Israelis know this, including great military heroes like Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Rabin, all of whom would find a compromise solution even on Jerusalem for the sake of a greater and lasting peace. It seems to me that it is time Republicans and Dems alike recognize this, as well. Perhaps Koch, Saban and Dershowitz already have but feel uncomfortable saying so? This is just as probable a story as any imagined in this article.

paul delanosays:

November 4, 2012 - 5:28 pm

not really

JacobArnonsays:

November 4, 2012 - 7:42 pm

“There’s a place for voters for whom strong support of Israel is the key issue—and that’s the Republican Party. But Israel’s security has long depended on backing from both parties. Without it, the Jewish state will rapidly become a partisan issue, and Israel will invariably pay the price. At a moment when Israel needs strong U.S. support, Koch, Dershowitz, and Saban are looking to postpone that day of reckoning.”

I agree that bipartizan support is essential for Israel’s survival.

But Smith can’t have it bot h ways. Arguing for supporting the Republicans and for bipartizan support.

For me the Republican Party has been more hostile to Israel’s legitimate interests.
Remenber Eisenhower? Remember Bush Senior? This is just th tip of the iceberg.

Jews me need to vote their conscience and not be persuaded by well written but misguided notions.

M. Goldsays:

November 5, 2012 - 5:56 am

An excellent analysis by Lee
Smith.

I should add however, as a life-long liberal Democrat, I voted for McCain and
will vote for Romney, and the world will not end and indeed it will survive.

I oppose Obama because I spent time in 2008 reading everything I could find,
including his “Dreams from My Father” to try to understand who he was. What I
discovered, beginning with a marvelous investigative piece in the New Yorker,
“Making It, How Chicago Shaped Obama,” by Ryan Lizza, July 21, 2008, informed
me more about his past, motivations, influences, ambitions, general lack of any
administrative experience, and how he chose his Christian, religious identity
for political expediency.

His policies and actions since his election, only served to confirm my
research.

Killing Osama bin Laden is not a foreign policy. Bin Laden had already become irrelevant,
since the decentralization of Al Qaida, which has become a clearer and more powerful
universal danger. The recent debacle in Benghazi only emphasizes Obama’s
incompetence in foreign policy, by his not acknowledging and confronting the
ever growing, immediate crisis of a vibrant, very much alive, Al Qaida.

Obama’s pressure on Israel before 2010 showed a definite bias which was not
favorable to Israel. Until the Palestinians want peace, as much as Sadat did,
and show it by removing the hatred filled anti-Israel textbooks, then a two
state solution is a distant dream. Obama only stopped his pressure on Israel,
when Democrats lost the House seat in Queens to a Republican, after Anthony
Wiener’s resignation. A loss of even 5% of the Jewish vote (in Florida and
other swing states) was the motivating fear factor. But since then, Obama never
showed that he has changed anything about resuming his policy of pressure on
Israel, after his reelection. Yes, he has provided arms and intelligence to
Israel, but in the other, equally important area, pressure on Israel is likely
to return, awakening worldwide hostility and animosity against Israel. In this,
Obama had accepted the false claims of J Street which pretends to represent the
majority of American Jews.

There should be no fear that
failing to support Obama would lead to Congressional opposition to Israel.
Congress has shown it is overwhelmingly pro Israel, in spite of Obama. If Koch
and Dershowitz were to continue to oppose Obama, it would not affect the Democratic
Party, since those Democrats who were at the recent nominating convention, who
represent Obama’s new direction for the party, have already demonstrated a
hatred for Israel. This new mood will only be reversed with the defeat of
Obama, and the return to the liberal party of the past. When that happens, I
will again be able to vote for a Democratic candidate for President.

Good articles such as these pose the issue of American Jews supporting Obama as if they are anomalies. They aren’t. America Jews support Obama and the Democratic Party. They do not strongly support Israel.

This article smacks of people rationalizing which likely means that the real reasons for their support of Obama and the Democrats is not what is advertized.

And on this why should we be surprised? American Jews do not support Israel. American Jews not on the Left are parents of children who are – and they are much closer to their children than they are to Israeli’s.

The support American Jews show for the Democrats – as if they are so innocent and isolated that they do not know what a Republican is, is really based on the fact that the Democratic party is Left and Radical Left and so are American Jews.

I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your site. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme? Exceptional work!|

HaroldCalssays:

April 6, 2016 - 1:01 pm

Our on the ball yoke of writers bear a master chirography cut, equitableness, or ethics, and be it to microeconomics. When you labour with us you are guaranteed that you ordain d your absolute enquiry just to the gamy ideal and keenness that we pertain when scribble literary works each of your essays. MA in Coeval Narration and Politics.

Name (required)Email (required, will not be published)Website (optional)

Message

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.